|
March 1, 2026
Key Developments and What We're Discussing Today:
- Iran is a terrorist regime. Iran is oppressing its citizens. Iran is a threat to the U.S. and to Israel. The world might be a better place under a different regime. Iran has a long history of violence against the United States. It does not logically follow from those facts that this war is legal, wise, or likely to succeed.
- Yesterday, Trump launched an unconstitutional war of choice against Iran. Whether you agree or disagree with the rationale for the war or its stated objectives is irrelevant to the illegality of the war.
- Trump has not explained how this military action will achieve any of his stated objectives, probably because he can't. The odds of success are low. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority, pass a War Powers Resolution, and block this unjustified and illegal military action--no matter how emotionally satisfying it might feel to some of us at the moment.
- Attack ads aired by SuperPACs reportedly connected to AIPAC against Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss in IL-09 appear to be backfiring because they are drawing responses that highlight Laura Fine's poor record on the issues raised by the ads. New independent polling shows that Biss, backed by retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky to succeed her, remains the frontrunner. The question is whether a third candidate, Kat Abughazaleh, will be the (un?)intended beneficiary of the AIPAC attack ads ostensibly in support of Fine.
You can define "supporting my work" by a contribution via credit card or PayPal, Venmo @Steven-Sheffey, or check. Thank you.
Greetings!
Yesterday, Trump launched an unconstitutional war of choice against Iran. Whether you agree or disagree with the rationale for the war or its stated objectives is irrelevant to the illegality of the war (if Iran posed an imminent threat to the U.S., Trump failed to describe it or to explain what recently changed that required military action right now).
Really hating a regime is not a legal justification under our Constitution. Iran does not pose an imminent threat.
Iran is a terrorist regime. Iran is oppressing its citizens. Iran is a threat to the U.S. and to Israel. The world might be a better place under a different regime. Iran has a long history of violence against the United States. It does not logically follow from those facts that this war is legal, wise, or likely to succeed.
Emotionally, it is hard not to support this war, at least right now, before anything has gone wrong. Iran has fired previoulsy fired ballistic missiles at Israel and bankrolled terrorism against Israel. It's not hard to understand why many Israelis are celebrating Trump's announcement, even from within bomb shelters.
Rationally, it's hard to make a sound policy case for this war.
The Arms Control Association stated that "Trump's premeditated, illegal attack on Iran aimed at regime change is an illegal war of choice, it is not supported by the American people, it was not authorized by Congress as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act, and it is a grave violation of international law.
"The combined U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran are not justifiable on nonproliferation grounds. There was no imminent nuclear threat from Iran that justifies this reckless, brazen attack that has metastasized into a major regional conflict."
This is what you need to know about the War Powers Act. Richard Haas lists 13 thoughts about this questionable war of choice that we should all keep in mind.
Andrew Miller writes that military action is unlikely to achieve its objectives and brings grave risks of retaliation and a longer regional entanglement.
George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq was motivated in large part by regime change. Michael McFaul lists four key differences between that war and this war.
Tom Nichols writes, "Iran is not presenting immediate danger to the United States or Israel. Even President Trump, in a recorded address, didn’t bother overly much with such excuses; instead he presented a farrago of charges and accusations going back a half century that included everything from killing American troops in Iraq to terrorism. These indictments are all grounded in truth, but none present a rationale for immediate attack."
Nichols concludes, "The president, a former casino boss, is taking a huge gamble. He has drawn his cards; the chips are now on the table. He has exactly one shot at getting this right. As Tom Warrick, a former Department of Homeland Security official, posted on X, Trump is trying to draw an inside straight.
"Every so often, that pays off. Inside straights do exist, and occasionally a player manages to put one together. But any gambler will tell you: It’s not usually the way to bet."
Steve Rabinowitz speaks for many of us when he laments, "I was called a ‘kapo’ for backing the Iran deal Donald Trump ripped up. Here we are again, with so much lost."
David Litt's hot take is that wars based on lies are bad.
But AIPAC seems cool with Trump's decision. At least they are clear where they stand--with Netanyahu and Trump.
As Phil Gordon reminds us, "In Iraq we tried full-on invasion and occupation and got costly disaster. In Libya we avoided boots on the ground and got costly disaster. In Afghanistan we tried to arm and train new government forces and got costly disaster. Trump is gambling against historical record that 'this time will be different.'"
I hope Trump draws an inside straight. But I'm not betting on it.
We cannot count on Republicans to stand up to Trump, but as Dan Pfeiffer writes, "Democrats need to stop complicating something that is actually pretty simple — and loudly, boldly oppose a dumb and dangerous man launching a dumb and dangerous war for no good reason."
This is not only about Iran. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) reminds us that "by ignoring Congress Trump is continuing his long march toward authoritarianism. This is yet another presidential usurpation of power leading to an authoritarian regime."
Urge your member of Congress to support the War Powers Resolution that will come for a vote this week.
If you want a succinct summary of all of the above, read and share Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-CT) statement and this statement from Major General (Ret.) Paul D. Eaton, an Army commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Daniel Biss continues to lead in IL-09 despite massive spending against him. A new poll commissioned by Public Policy Polling for Evanston Roundtable found that in the Illinois 9th congressional district Democratic primary to succeed Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Daniel Biss at 24%, leading Kat Abughazaleh (17%) and Laura Fine (16%). Biss is the only candidate in the crowded field whose favorability rating exceeds 50%.
Fine trails Biss by three points in the Senate district Fine represents. Biss is polling at 27% with women voters, with Abughazaleh and Fine both at 17%. Among men, Biss and Abughazaleh are tied, with Fine in third.
Fine continues to lag despite a relentless TV blitz, but AIPAC might succeed in tearing Biss down enough to give Abughazaleh a narrow victory, which is what I've been warning about for months, long before AIPAC's New Jersey debacle. Biss's opponents continue to distort where he stands on Israel. This is the truth: Daniel Biss deserves pro-Israel support.
Last week, Biss responded to a misleading ad run by an allegedly AIPAC shell group. This dark money super PAC has spent $2.3 million supporting Laura Fine in the last three weeks — more than the $1.9 million that Fine herself raised in all of 2025.
Alaina Hampton and State Rep. Kelly Cassidy issued a blistering, personal response to Fine's attempts to tie Biss to Madigan, concluding that "Fine had many opportunities to speak up in support of those impacted by sexual harassment and violence in the Madigan organization, and she did nothing of the sort. The brazenness with which she now wields that moment as a political weapon is disgusting. She should be ashamed."
Corrections. I'm entitled to my own opinions but not to my own facts, so I appreciate it when readers bring errors to my attention. In last week's newsletter, I included the wrong link to Nexus Vice President of Government Relations Kevin Rachlin's testimony on antisemitism. Here is the correct link.
In Case You Missed It:
- Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed yesterday. Prior to Trump's Iran attacks, the CIA assessed that Khamenei could be replaced by hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps elements if killed.
- Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) introduced the Ceasefire Compliance Act, which would ban the use of U.S.-supplied weapons in Gaza and the West Bank if Israel violates the October 10, 2025, ceasefire agreement and 20-point plan, annexes the West Bank, or fails to combat settler violence against Palestinians. The bill exempts defensive missile systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 3, and maintains U.S. support for Israel’s security.
Tweets of the Week. Donald Trump, Riley, Larry Sabato, Mike Bird, and Aaron Regunberg.
Threads of the Week. Michael Koplow and Jacob Ben-David Linker explain what "sympathize" means in the context of polling about American views of Israel and the Palestinians.
Video Clip of the Week. Jon Stewart.
Vintage Music Clip of the Week. Ruby Tuesday/Let's Spend the Night Together.
The Fine Print. I read every reply to this newsletter. I reply as often as I can. All I ask is that you read the fine print before you reply or send me anything.
For those new to this newsletter. This is the newsletter even Republicans have to read and the original home of the viral and beloved Top Ten Signs You're At a Republican Seder (yes, I wrote it).
If someone forwarded this newsletter to you, your luck continues. You can subscribe and get it in your inbox every Sunday for free. Just click here.
Be sure to read my posts on distinguishing anti-Zionism from antisemitism, how to heal the generational rift on Israel and antisemitism, and the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
I hope you enjoyed today's newsletter. It takes time to write and costs money to send. If you'd like to support my work, click here and fill in the amount of your choice. You don't need a PayPal account. If you see something that says "Save your info and create a PayPal account," click the button to the right and it will go away. Or you can Venmo @Steven-Sheffey. Or you can send a check.
Unless stated otherwise, my views do not necessarily reflect the views of any candidates or organizations I support or am associated with.
| 