In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we’re doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.

Posted by Joshua Scheer

Recent reporting suggests that former President Donald Trump privately envisions a bold “regime change” in Iran, seeing it as a historical legacy project. Sources indicate he has pressed military planners for contingency strategies that could allow major attacks while keeping potential chaos politically manageable for the midterms.

At the same time, some Democratic leaders appear less focused on preventing war than on the political calculus of who would bear the consequences. Internal discussions reveal a tension: a portion of the party sees a potential conflict as both strategically and politically advantageous if Trump ends up owning the fallout. Meanwhile, a few members of Congress, including Reps. Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, have pushed for a War Powers resolution to require public accountability.

This coverage raises pressing questions about political expediency versus ethical responsibility in decisions that could imperil thousands of lives abroad and American service members. The stakes are high, and the calculation of winners and losers in Washington may come at a catastrophic human cost.

Reporting from Drop Site describes how Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “TACO Trump” jab sparked backlash from anti‑war groups, who warned that such rhetoric boxed the president into escalation rather than diplomacy. According to the outlet’s account of a call with a senior Democratic aide, some Senate Democrats privately viewed a U.S. strike on Iran as both inevitable and politically advantageous — a dynamic that became starkly visible when Trump launched major attacks weeks later and party leaders offered only muted objections.

Drop Site News reporting that “Cynically, Schumer may also have the midterms in mind: If Trump manages to topple the Iranian government, the ensuing chaos could prove a drag on Trump as the country heads into the November elections. An attack would put American servicemembers at more serious risk than after past strikes, particularly if Iran makes good on its threats to unleash much heavier attacks than in its previous retaliatory strikes. And if the U.S. takes dozens, or even hundreds, of casualties as a result of Trump’s war of choice, that would also be damaging to the GOP.”

for more on the story

Trump Privately Dreams of Iran Regime Change Glory as Democrats Cynically Weigh Political Benefits of War by Drop Site News

Trump says he wants to be the president who takes down the Islamic Republic. Democratic leaders see him walking into a political trap of his own making ahead of the midterms.

Read on Substack

For more on the rising tensions with Iran and the escalating threats coming from the Trump administration, here is DropSite’s Jeremy Scahill in conversation with Robert Malley — an American lawyer, political scientist, and veteran conflict‑resolution specialist who served as the lead U.S. negotiator on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. As the U.S. assembles its largest military force in the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion, Scahill warns that Washington’s talk of “diplomacy” is unfolding alongside a massive war buildup. Malley breaks down what this moment really signals — from Trump’s sweeping ultimatums to Iran’s red lines, to the growing belief inside Washington that a strike may be imminent. With negotiations in Oman and Geneva happening even as U.S. and Israeli forces prepare for possible escalation, this conversation offers rare clarity on how close the region may be to a wider war.

You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.

Please share this story and help us grow our network!




Post navigation