To create a safer world, millions of Americans need to mobilize to end the war on Iran, prevent nuclear proliferation, halt the arms race and slash military budgets.
The president who promised to end forever wars and spoke of reducing nuclear weapons has succumbed to what David Wallace-Wells calls āimpulsive warmongering.ā
After bombing Iran for 12 days last June, the U.S. and Israel launched a massive military assault that has caused widespread damage in the region and major disruption in global energy markets. In January, Donald Trump sent military forces to capture and arrest the leader of Venezuela, NicolƔs Maduro. The White House has proposed the largest military spending increase since World War II and plans to pay for it with draconian cuts in health care and other domestic social programs. Trump has refused offers by Moscow to preserve limits on U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and wants to resume nuclear testing.
Opposing these policies and advocating for peaceful alternatives is essential to create a safer world. A more engaged global peace movement is needed to counter these threats and advocate for a more secure future.
Below is a four-point agenda for political action: End the war against Iran; prevent nuclear proliferation in the Gulf; halt and reverse the global nuclear arms race; and slash military spending levels.
Ending the war in Iran
Stopping Trumpās continued military aggression against Iran is an urgent priority. The war is increasingly unpopular. Recent polls show 58 percent of Americans opposed to the war, with disapproval of Trumpās presidency at a record high.
Although Republicans in the Senate have repeatedly rejected Democratic attempts to invoke the War Powers Act limiting U.S. involvement, some in the GOP have signaled that the statuteās 60-day deadline on May 1 could be a turning point. Some Republicans have indicated they will not support the war beyond that date if the president does not seek Senate approval or find a way to end the conflict. These rumblings of discontent, although faint, are an indication of mounting political trouble for the White House.
The president desperately needs a way out of the quagmire he has created for himself. He claims that Iran has been defeated and the war is over, but Tehran refuses to yield. The U.S. allowed the initial deadline for the end of the ceasefire to pass last week without taking further military action, but Trump repeated his odious threat to cause the āmajor destructionā of Iranās civilian infrastructure.
As Trump flails about for a solution, opponents of the war must continue to demand an end to all further bombing and all U.S. military operations in the region, urging a withdrawal of American forces and negotiations for a solution to regional security issues and agreed limits on Iranās nuclear program.
Protests against the war are increasing. On April 20, dozens of veterans and military family members demonstrated at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. Members of About Face, Veterans For Peace, Common Defense, Military Families Speak Out and other groups unveiled antiwar banners in the Cannon House Office Building rotunda. They held red tulips out of respect for the thousands of Iranians killed by U.S. strikes. They conducted a flag-folding ceremony to honor the 13 U.S. troops killed so far in the war. Chanting antiwar slogans, more than 60 of the veterans and their supporters were arrested by U.S. Capitol Police.
That same day protesters gathered at the New York office of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand urging support for legislation introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders that would block U.S. funding for additional weaponry and bulldozers to Israel. The Sanders resolution is gaining increased support among Democrats in Congress. The actions in Washington, D.C. and New York in recent days were among many protests against the war across the U.S., around the world and in Israel.
Opposition to the war has become a theme of the No Kings movement, which initially concentrated on saving democracy and opposing executive overreach. With Trumpās attack against Iran, the focus of the movement has broadened. Messages opposing the war and its costs were prevalent in the massive March 28 mobilizations. Posters for āhealthcare not warfareā appeared frequently.
Antiwar themes need to be front and center as activists engage in the midterm elections. MoveOn, the Movement Voter Project and other organizations are already hard at work mobilizing support for progressive candidates. By participating actively in political meetings and campaign debates, opponents of the war can deliver a powerful message: If candidates want our vote, they must take a firm stand against Trumpās disastrous war.
Preventing proliferation in the Gulf
The stated purposes of the war have shifted constantly, but the most consistently emphasized goal is to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. Trump has also mentioned other objectives, such as regime change and gaining control of Iranās oil. If nonproliferation is the goal, the use of military force is the wrong approach. Most successes in nonproliferation policy have been the result of diplomatic bargaining, often utilizing targeted sanctions and incentives.
Iranās nuclear program was effectively contained through the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, which blocked Tehranās pathway to developing nuclear weapons. (Details on how the JCPOA curtailed Iranās nuclear program and the evidence of Iranian compliance with the agreement are available here.)
Although the U.S. State Department reported Iranian compliance with the JCPOA, Trump claimed falsely that Tehran was cheating and reneged on the deal in May 2018. The U.S. then imposed āmaximum pressureā sanctions, leading to renewed enmity, prompting Tehran to enrich uranium to higher levels and laying the foundation for the current armed hostilities.
Iran made major compromises in the JCPOA, and it offered similar concessions in negotiations in June 2025 and February 2026. On the last two occasions, the U.S. and Israel began bombing just as conciliatory Iranian proposals were presented. Given Trumpās disdain for diplomacy, Iranians are understandably skeptical of the prospects for a negotiated agreement.
U.S. and Israeli assaults may have stirred an impulse among Iranian hardliners to play the nuclear card they have previously held in reserve but have not used. The tragic irony is that a war supposedly to prevent Iran from building a bomb may increase the propensity to do just that.
Worsening the danger is Trumpās commitment to help Saudi Arabia acquire uranium enrichment and plutonium separation facilities. As Washington wages war to prevent Iran from enriching uranium, it is proposing to help Tehranās rival develop a similar and more expansive nuclear capability. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stated in a 2018 interview that if Iran develops a bomb, āwe will follow suit as soon as possible.ā
A nuclear arms race in the Gulf would be a nightmare for everyone, including Israel, which adds a compelling argument for ending the war and engaging in effective diplomacy to settle the dispute with Iran and contain nuclear programs in the region. Members of Congress have introduced legislation to prevent Saudi enrichment and impose strict nonproliferation guardrails on the proposed deal. These efforts deserve public support.
Halting the arms race
Nuclear proliferation is not just a concern in the Middle East. Dozens of disarmament groups in the U.S. and other countries recently joined together to issue a global āCall to Halt and Reverse the Nuclear Arms Race.ā The groups are urging a complete stop to the development and deployment of nuclear bombs and weapons systems on all sides, including the U.S., Russia and China. The organizations have unified around the message that āmore nuclear weapons will not make the world safer.ā
Disseminating the call and seeking additional endorsements from religious, scientific and social organizations are achievable action steps that can increase awareness of the nuclear danger. Building support for the call can prepare groups to oppose specific acts of nuclear development by the United States, such as the deployment of additional nuclear warheads on existing weapons platforms, and resuming nuclear explosions at the Nevada test site.
Activists are also demanding that Washington and Moscow formalize an agreement on maintaining current strategic weapons limits and begin negotiations for a new arms reduction treaty. They advocate for the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, as specified in the U.N. Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Slashing war budgets
The president and his Republican supporters in Congress are drastically militarizing the U.S. federal budget. Adjusting for inflation, Trumpās 2027 budget will increase military spending by more than 40 percent. Among the many alarming items in the new budget is a 65 percent spending increase on plutonium production to create 100 new plutonium pits for nuclear warheads per year.
Even before the proposed increase, military spending is higher now than it was at the peak of the Vietnam War. It is nearly twice what it was in 1961, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about the āunwarranted influenceā wielded by the military-industrial complex.
The new budget can be regarded as a vast corporate welfare system to further enrich arms contractors. The unparalleled increase in their financial power will enable arms builders to lobby the government for even more unnecessary weapons. It will also benefit members of Congress who receive contributions from weapons contractors to create jobs in their district. Itās a legalized form of corruption masquerading as national defense.
Decades ago, those who profited from war were branded merchants of death. Peace activists in the 1930s helped Sen. Gerald Nye of North Dakota convene widely publicized hearings on the munitions industry. The proceedings exposed the role of industrial and financial magnates in promoting the pre-World War I arms race, and fueled public disgust with capitalist greed. Perhaps an equivalent public disclosure of arms contractor corruption could be organized today.
Military spending expert Stephen Semlerās analysis of Trumpās 2027 budget illuminates Americaās warped national priorities. Setting aside entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, which are funded by fixed formulas written into law and can only be adjusted through extraordinary Congressional action, Trumpās budget allocates 80 percent of discretionary spending either directly or indirectly to war: preparation for war, the consequences of past wars or militarized policing. If enacted, the new proposal would cut spending on domestic priorities and social programs by $300 billion.
On top of all of this, the White House has announced it will submit a $98 billion supplemental appropriation to continue the war on Iran and stock up weapons to fight similar wars in the future. The war supplemental will face stiff opposition in Congress, deservedly so. The budget debate provides an opportunity for activists to mobilize against further spending for war, and also to challenge the entire warmaking budget. Small cuts here or there will not suffice against the monstrously distorted budget now before Congress.
If we add to the direct and indirect costs of war, the militaryās share of the interest on the national debt, along with growing expenditures on prisons and immigrant detention centers, the amount of tax dollars devoted to the wars at home and abroad in Trumpās proposed budget would exceed $2 trillion per year, according to Semlerās analysis. Programs for public health, the environment, housing, scientific research, day care, nutrition and education are slashed to the bone. The Trump administration has built a garrison state that feeds weapons contractors and starves the rest of us. This is a tragedy of historic proportions, and it means there is nowhere to hide from the war machine and the surveillance state.
More and more people and organizations now have no choice but to pay attention to overspending on the Pentagon, and to fight back as if their lives and livelihoods depend on it. Because, increasingly, they do. Among the organizations working directly against the war machineās spending splurge are People Over Pentagon, a coalition that includes Public Citizen, Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Project on Government Oversight, the American Friends Service Committee, Peace Action, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Poor Peopleās Campaign, a joint project of the Kairos Center and Repairers of the Breach.
Pressure is needed to demand a fundamental restructuring of federal spending priorities. Without a wholesale shift towards more balanced budgeting, millions of Americans will suffer from untreated medical conditions, inadequate nutrition and lack of access to economic opportunity.
The peace agenda is demanding and will require an enormous mobilization of political action from millions of Americans. The challenge is daunting, but the prospects for progress are real. Trumpās warmongering is increasingly unpopular. The prospects for political realignment in November are increasing. Millions of people have participated in No Kings protests. If the political energy against Trumpism can be harnessed for a concentrated campaign to stop war and militarism, a more peaceful future will be possible.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
1 Comment
Response to “A Four-Point Agenda for Peace”
This agenda is important, but for the peace movement to advance its goals it will require supplemental mechanisms and activities that go well beyond what the article envisions.
Eisenhower did famously identify the military-industrial complex, but the complex of power behind militarism is more accurately understood as an ensemble of economic, political, media, and military power working in combination. As Feldman (2007) argued, “the military-industrial complex was and is a complex of financial, political, military, human, and media capital,” a formation in which militarized institutions colonize civilian ones, depleting resources and distorting democratic governance. The U.S. war economy functions as a vast engine of accumulation, with military spectacles building media power, political power, and economic power simultaneously. As Seymour Melman explained in Pentagon Capitalism, Eisenhower also authored the birth certificate of the very complex he later warned against. He is virtuous in one sense, then, but less virtuous in another. The departure point for any serious peace agenda must therefore go beyond Eisenhower and encompass all four of these interlocking forms of power. The fundamental question this raises is whether we are living in a technocratic society of concentrated and arbitrary power or a pluralist one. There are obviously elements of both, but pluralism will always be constrained if it cannot transcend the intermediaries who ration access to these resources. The article’s agenda largely assumes pluralist conditions, that mobilized public opinion can translate into policy change, without interrogating whether those channels remain genuinely open when all four forms of power are aligned against transformation.
Demonstrations are hardly sufficient, nor are coalitions with politicians the primary lever. The reason lies in a structural reality the article does not adequately address: the relatively concentrated economic dependencies found in military-specialized regions and firms. Workers, local governments, and congressional representatives in these areas experience military spending as jobs and tax revenues, not as a policy choice. This is why successive administrations, regardless of stated intentions, reproduce militarism. Melman recognized that organizing opposition to the latest war was insufficient for making progress against the war-making institutions: something bigger was required, a sustained program for the gradual elimination of the permanent war economy. That program must include economic conversion of military firms, new budget priorities promoting needed civilian investments, and the implementation of workplace democracy. As Feldman (2022) has argued, both oil and military companies together possess the scale of resources necessary for systemic transformation, and a counter-mobilization is needed to reverse ecological and military problems by transforming those resources. The incumbent militarized economy can only be transformed by an alternative mobilization around alternative investments, not merely by campaigns to stop wars or cut military budgets.
The conversion problem is more complex than it first appears. As Feldman (2022b) has shown, firms that are highly defense-dependent and whose technology has little relatedness to civilian applications will find conversion most difficult, while those with lower defense dependency and more transferable technology face fewer barriers. Yet even difficult cases are not impossible: studies of post-Cold War diversification found that firms with robust strategies enjoyed higher profits and productivity, and that the majority of smaller defense companies were successfully developing new civilian products. The real barrier is not technical but political and managerial. Military cutbacks did not translate into uniform commitments to civilian spending because “the managers of the war economy proceeded to use up the conceivable peace dividend in new military projects.” Conversion requires not just market forces but proactive policy at the firm, regional, national, and international levels, including advance planning, worker participation in designing civilian alternatives, and new procurement commitments by civilian agencies.
The advance of a Green New Deal as one pole for such alternatives has been slowed precisely because localities, social movements, and allied institutions do not leverage their procurement power. Municipalities, universities, pension funds, and cooperative institutions all possess leverage through purchasing and investment decisions that remains largely dormant. Such a politics of procurement is beyond the vocabulary of many in the peace camp, yet it represents a form of leverage that exists outside and beneath conventional politics. There are historical precedents: the divestment campaign against apartheid South Africa, and more recently fossil fuel divestment efforts, demonstrate the possibility of redirecting institutional resources as a form of political action. Extending this logic to both military firms and oil companies is a natural next step (Feldman, 2022). Conversion involves shifting what these companies make and what markets they serve; dismantling involves ending financial support for products and firms that cannot be converted. Banks that finance both sectors are a key pressure point in this strategy. During the Clinton administration, some defense budget savings were successfully redirected to science and technology spending for alternative transportation, energy conservation, and renewable energy, illustrating that this pathway is not merely theoretical.
Feldman (2021) has shown how universities, in particular, could serve as sites for green conversion by linking activist cohorts to material mobilizations that redirect institutional resources toward ecological reconstruction. The procurement power of universities, through their endowments, catering, energy contracts, and research partnerships, represents an underutilized mechanism for exactly this kind of conversion politics. A mobilization of universities could help initiate a shift in resources away from military and oil toward civilian or ecological pursuits. There are thousands of universities in proximity to millions of students who could help leverage such a change process.
Underlying all of this is a theory of change that differs fundamentally from the one the article implicitly relies on. Political agendas are themselves dependent variables, not independent drivers of transformation. Durable political shifts require the prior development of a socioeconomic infrastructure capable of supporting alternative politics. This includes new intermediaries, institutions, and economic forms that make conversion viable and legible to communities that currently depend on the militarized economy. As Feldman (2007) argued, drawing on C. Wright Mills, the peace movement’s struggle “is and must be a political struggle over the very means of power required for that struggle.” Without reconstructive planning, we are left with resistance and reactive strategies that leave the initiative to the powers that be. We need a host of institutions: study circles, folk high schools on the model of Highlander, and cooperative institutions that build up an alternative socioeconomic infrastructure capable of combating militarism from below. This is what Feldman (2007) called a “shadow state,” a networked alternative that could bring fragments of opposition together, provide services, help finance democratic firms and social innovations, and extend accountability against the existing national state. The Highlander analogy is apt: it built the analytical capacity and social solidarity that made the civil rights movement politically viable before that movement became publicly visible. A parallel infrastructure is needed today, one that can make procurement politics and conversion planning intelligible to communities that currently experience military spending as necessity rather than choice.
None of this displaces the urgency of the article’s four very urgent and important demands. Short-term resistance to the war on Iran, to nuclear proliferation, and to ballooning military budgets must continue. But it must be pursued simultaneously with the longer-term construction of the alternative socioeconomic infrastructure that makes lasting demilitarization possible. The challenge is to link these two timescales, to show that the institutions being built now are not merely preparation for some future politics, but are themselves a form of political action in the present, one that redirects resources rather than merely protesting their current use.
References
Feldman, J. M. (2007). From warfare state to “shadow state”: Militarism, economic depletion, and reconstruction. Social Text, 25(2 [91]), 143-168. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-2006-030
Feldman, J. M. (2021). From the “Greta Thunberg effect” to green conversion of universities: The reconstructive praxis of discursive mobilizations. Discourse and Communication for Sustainable Education, 12(1), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.2478/dcse-2021-0009
Feldman, J. M. (2022). Redirect the resources of oil companies, military firms and banks. Development Magazine (FUF: Swedish Forum for Development Studies). https://fuf.se/magasin/redirect-the-resources-of-oil-companies-military-firms-and-banks/
Feldman, J. M. (2022b). Economic conversion. In L. Kurtz (Ed.), Encyclopedia of violence, peace, and conflict (3rd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 137-150). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820195-4.00073-X
Melman, S. (1970). Pentagon capitalism: The political economy of war. McGraw-Hill.
Melman, S. (1974). The permanent war economy: American capitalism in decline. Simon and Schuster.
Note: For more on the agenda of social and economic reconstruction that lies at the heart of this analysis, see this TedxBrussels talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2cwYwuNWiY