NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show on Iran, as the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz intensifies. The U.S. Navy is continuing to blockade Iranian ports, while Iran is preventing most ships from passing through the strait. On Wednesday, Iran seized two cargo ships. Iran has reportedly also begun collecting tolls from ships seeking to pass through the strait.

It remains unclear when the U.S. and Iran will hold another round of talks. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian said three main obstacles are holding up negotiations: a breach of commitments by the U.S., the U.S. naval blockade and U.S. threats to Iran.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled Senate has rejected another effort by Democrats to pass a war powers resolution to rein in President Trump’s ability to wage war on Iran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, quote, “Democrats will continue to force votes on war powers resolutions every week until Republicans decide to put the American people over Donald Trump and end this war.”

Our next guest has closely followed U.S. policy on Iran for years. Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and director of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco. His new piece for Truthout is titled “This Isn’t Just Trump’s War on Iran. Both Parties Paved the Way for Disaster.”

So, welcome back to Democracy Now!, Professor Zunes. If you could just begin by laying out your argument? How did the Democratic Party pave the way for this war on Iran?

STEPHEN ZUNES: Well, to their credit, the Democrats have opposed this war, though largely on procedural grounds, Constitution and the failure to account for the economic problems and the like. They’ve been pushing for war on one level or the other. Obama was an exception. Obama really tried to solve the crisis through the Iran nuclear deal. But hawks in the Democratic Party and in Congress and elsewhere have made a whole series of very confrontational statements, exaggerating Iran’s capabilities and the threat they give to the region, threatening military force, undermining diplomatic initiatives.

Just for example, the 2024 Democratic Party platform attacked Trump from the right, accusing him of fecklessness and weakness in dealing with Iran. They pointed out four incidents under Trump’s first term, when U.S. forces were attacked by a pro-Iranian militia, and criticizing him for not responding militarily, even though each of these incidents were a direct reaction to a provocation by the Trump administration. They contrasted that with Biden and his ordering airstrikes and the like. And also, during the campaign, Harris was also saying Iran is the biggest threat in the world, you know, more so than nuclear-powered countries like Russia and North Korea, China, and also taking this very, you know, tough line of a confrontational approach without talking about returning to the nuclear deal.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s hear from some Democrats in their own words about Iran. This is Vice President — this is former Vice President Kamala Harris during her first debate with Donald Trump in September 2024.

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: The one thing I will assure you always: I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular as it relates to — as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In October 2024, Kamala Harris appeared on CBS’s 60 Minutes and was questioned by Bill Whitaker.

BILL WHITAKER: Which foreign country do you consider to be our greatest adversary?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I think there’s an obvious one in mind, which is Iran. Iran has American blood on their hands. OK? This attack on Israel, 200 ballistic missiles. What we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power, that is one of my highest priorities.

BILL WHITAKER: So, if you have proof —

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: And that must be.

BILL WHITAKER: — that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, would you take military action?

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS: I’m not going to talk about hypotheticals at this moment.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And as recently as last summer, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump for not being tough enough on Iran. In a video posted on social media, Schumer belittled reported Trump administration negotiation attempts with Iran and used the ”TACO” epithet — that is, “Trump always chickens out.”

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: When it comes to negotiating with the terrorist government of Iran, Trump’s all over the lot. One day he sounds tough. The next day he’s backing off. And now, all of a sudden, we find out that Witkoff and Rubio are negotiating a secret side deal with Iran. What kind of bull is this? They’re going to sound tough in public and then have a side deal that lets Iran get away with everything? That’s outrageous. We need to make that side deal public. Any side deal should be before Congress and, most importantly, the American people. If TACO Trump is already folding, the American public should know about it. No side deals.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Professor Zunes, your response to the comments we just played, and to what extent you think they’re representative of the Democratic Party overall?

STEPHEN ZUNES: Well, certainly, Schumer and Jeffries are among the more hawkish members of the Democratic caucus. We’ve seen that regarding Israel and other issues. But we’ve also seen very one-sided resolutions passed by a number of Congresses with overwhelming Democratic support. We’ve seen Democratic Party planks that are really hawkish, as well, even in term — I think of the 2016 Democratic platform, said, “We will not hesitate to use military force If Iran violates the agreement,” even though there were already enforcement mechanisms within that agreement that would automatically put sanctions back in, even though it would have taken years for Iran to rebuild their nuclear program. Similarly, in 2011, Congress passed — or, the House passed a bill, that, fortunately, did not pass the Senate because of constitutional questions and Obama administration opposition, that would have prohibited any representative of the U.S. government from even meeting with any representative of Iran. The following year, there are a series of resolutions saying there will be — we will not rely on containment towards the supposed Iranian threat.

And these are passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, I mean, 90% of Democrats. And indeed, there’s one that was supported by — a resolution supported by every Democratic senator, that said if Israel feels compelled to use military action in its self-defense at Iran, we’ll give them military and other support — in other words, not just if they’re attacked by Iran, but if Israel — even if Israel attacks first.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Zunes, this House vote was considered a concurrent resolution. If you could explain what that means? And then also say what you expect to happen. You know, the federal law requires congressional approval for military actions extending beyond 60 days, and the war in Iran started on February 28th, so we are approaching that deadline.

STEPHEN ZUNES: The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War. It had bipartisan support, in fact, enough to override President Nixon’s veto. And basically, what it did was underscore what is quite clear in the U.S. Constitution, that only Congress has the right to declare war or authorize military action. I mean, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the president has the power to defend the United States if attacked. I mean, back in the late 18th century, if Congress wasn’t in sessions, it would take weeks for people to get back to Washington, and so they wanted to give the president the leverage to defend the country. But any offensive military action, it’s quite clear, it was a congressional prerogative. In fact, the War Powers Resolution gives the president more power than the Constitution said, because it gives them these 60 days.

But the failure to, you know, enact it here is quite disturbing. Now, again, to the Democrats’ credit, you know, they were — they are united, in large part, in support of this. I’m not taking the argument in this article that both parties are the same. I don’t think a Democratic president would have launched this war, if not for the moral or legal reasons, simply because they would have listened to the intelligence experts, the military leaders and others who have said, “This is going to be a mess. It’s not worth doing.” But at the same time, the climate that the Democrats have helped help lay in these 20 years of hawkish statements and resolutions and the like really made Trump’s job easier and has enabled him to, thus far, get away with it.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And if you could comment also, Professor Zunes, on the significance of 40 Senate Democrats voting last week to block weapons to Israel? Thirteen of those senators voted to block weapons for the first time.

STEPHEN ZUNES: This is significant, and I think it reflects the power of the growing movement in the United States, not just the pro-Palestinian crowd, but those who just simply for basic human rights grounds do not want to give unconditional aid to a country that’s engaged in massive war crimes in Gaza, in Lebanon, in the West Bank and elsewhere, not to mention, of course, this war with Iran, because people like Schumer and those Democrats that voted against this resolution of disapproval, I mean, they can’t say they oppose the war while at the same time providing Israel with unconditional offensive military aid. But in many ways, this reflects what we’ve seen historically, regarding Vietnam, regarding Central America, regarding South Africa, Iraq, etc., that the Democrats tend to start with a very hawkish position, but eventually they get pressure from their constituents that — where they get the message very clear that if they want to be reelected, if they want to have support, they’re going to have to side with the antiwar majority and not for the administration’s militaristic policies.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Zunes, what about the Iran nuclear agreement, which, of course, was signed, formalized by the Obama administration? How many Democrats, in your view, now would support a renewed — to go back, effectively, to the Iran nuclear deal?

STEPHEN ZUNES: It’s hard to say, because they haven’t been talking about it. I mean, even, again, Schumer, Jeffries and others who — opposing the war, they always say, “Oh, we will not — we should not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon,” really underscoring that point. And questioning the military action, I have not heard them say, “Let’s go back to the nuclear agreement, because not only would that make it physically impossible for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon; while that was in effect, Iran was moderating its policies.” It was not goading on these proxies in Iraq and elsewhere. They were not engaged in confrontational activities.

Indeed, if you look at the whole history of U.S.-Iranian relations since the revolution in 1979, when the United States has been more accommodating and more towards diplomacy, it’s moderated Iran’s overall foreign policy. When it’s been confrontational, they become more provocative and more militant. Similarly, with the domestic repression, as well, when there has not been an active threat, there’s been a little bit of a space opening both for reformists within the system and people outside the system trying to change it. But when there’s threats, when there’s war, that’s when some of the worst crackdowns have taken place.

So, again, I am really perplexed about why we’re not hearing a call for a return to the agreement. It was not in the last two Democratic Party platforms, and we have not been hearing it from the halls of Congress.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Stephen Zunes, thank you so much for joining us, professor of politics and director of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco. We’ll link to your new piece for Truthout titled “This Isn’t Just Trump’s War on Iran. Both Parties Paved the Way for Disaster.”

Coming up, we look at how the war on Iran could cause a global food crisis. Back in a minute.

[break]

NERMEEN SHAIKH: “Come Down Here & Say That” by Deerhoof.