By David Swanson, Progressive Hub, March 9, 2026
For many years, Senator Charles Schumer demanded tougher and tougher sanctions on the people of Iran, as he shamelessly documents on his own website. He insisted on a Cuba-like blockade, punishing and deterring any company or nation from providing life-support to Iran. He predicted, ludicrously but proudly, that such punishing sanctions might lead to an overthrow of the Iranian government.
Like all Congressional supporters and opponents of the Obama-era nuclear deal, Schumer pretended that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, but never pretended his only goal was to prevent that fictional behavior:
"The actual Iranian people are secular and pro American. And they are not poor. They are rising into the middle class... If we can squeeze them economically you might get them to take to the streets again and at the very minimum put pressure on their government to back off their nuclear escapade and at the very best overthrow the government."
For Schumer the long-enjoyed imaginary nightmare of a nuclear Iran was always a justification for lawless U.S. actions because it was a threat to Israel -- while meanwhile always pretending (with one exception obtained via great persistence) that Israel had no nuclear weapons and was a threat to no one.
During the debate over a nuclear deal with Iran, the two common positions in Congress were (1) we need this deal because Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, and (2) we need no deal and ideally a war because Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. Schumer opposed Obama's deal.
When Trump 1.0 wanted to tear up the deal, Schumer claimed to oppose that, even while relentlessly demanding more sanctions in apparent violation of the deal. Even when admitting that Iran was not violating the deal, Schumer never stopped denouncing Iran as the enemy of the United States engaged in behavior that he claimed required ever-more sanctions in (unstated) violation of the deal by the United States.
Nine months ago, Schumer posted a video solemnly accusing Trump 2.0 of being too "chicken" to take on Iran. When Israel has attacked Iran (or done anything else ever whatsoever) Schumer's focus has been on praising Israel.
As of February 24 and 25 of this year, we could read reports on how Schumer and other leading Democrats were working to avoid a vote on a war powers resolution until the war could be begun.
And once the war was begun, Schumer and gang didn't denounce mass murder, but mumbled about procedures, as if a congressional vote could have legalized a blatant violation of the UN Charter, or as if proper planning could turn slaughter and destruction into respectable acts. Schumer published a statement mixing together opposition to Trump's war with tougher-on-Iran-than-thou rhetoric and insistence on knowing the supposed goals of the war -- were they tough enough?
This was followed by a new statement claiming to support a war powers resolution and to oppose the war because of a handful of U.S. deaths, without a word for the many Iranians killed or the rule of law -- and another statement about how unpopular the war should make Trump, and yet another about how senators should vote yes on war powers -- but not a word in public or, as far as we know, in private about Democratic Senator John Fetterman who was already publicly saying that he would vote no.
After the failed vote, Schumer focused on Republicans and gas prices, with still never a word for those killed or the likely long-lasting consequences of all this large-scale violence, never a word on the need to block efforts to give Trump an Iran War Slush Fund of $50 billion, never a word on the need to block Congress from giving the Pentagon $1 trillion a year or upping it to $1.5 trillion, never a word on the need to close U.S. bases in Gulf-region dictatorships, never a word on the need to cosponsor and pass the Block the Bombs Act to finally halt the illegal shipment of weapons to Israel -- shipments still passionately and proudly supported by Schumer despite the genocide he loves having been joined by the new war on Iran that he claims to oppose.
I've talked with a number of people about this latest war who oppose it -- people I don't think have ever before opposed any of the hundreds of endless U.S. bloodbaths of recent history. While I find this vaguely encouraging, I'm struck by their usual next comment: "Well, at least the Democrats are trying their hardest."
