Frequently Asked Questions: No War with Iran

Q: Why should the focus be on U.S. aggression rather than Iranian aggression?

A: The U.S. has been the primary aggressor, notably since Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and imposed a "maximum pressure" campaign featuring severe economic sanctions prohibiting U.S. and foreign companies from trading with Iran. These sanctions are a form of economic warfare that impacts Iran's entire population of over 90 million people. Beyond sanctions, Trump also ordered the assassination of Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani in 2020. In 2025, as Iranian officials negotiated a potential new nuclear deal with Trump, the U.S. bombed three of Iran’s nuclear sites, ending negotiations and increasing the likelihood of a catastrophic regional war. As peace organizers based primarily in the U.S. and allied countries, we can make the biggest difference by mobilizing to stop the hybrid war our governments are waging on Iran. 

Q: What was the Iran nuclear deal, and what happened to it?

A: In 2015, the U.S., Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, the European Union, and Iran signed a landmark diplomatic agreement imposing restrictions on Iran’s capacity for nuclear weapon development. In exchange, the E.U., U.N., and U.S. agreed to lift sanctions on Iran, though some U.S. sanctions remained in place.

In 2018, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the deal under the first Trump administration, reimposing additional sanctions on Iran.

Q: How have U.S.-led sanctions impacted Iran?

A: The U.S. first imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979. Since then, the sanctions have been eased and tightened by different U.S. administrations, which have used them as a bargaining chip. U.S.-led sanctions have caused Iran’s life expectancy to decline, resulted in widespread medicine and food shortages, increased air pollution, destroyed the aviation sector, and suffocated the economy. Ordinary Iranians are suffering the most from these lethal measures.

Q: Why are people protesting in Iran? Should the U.S. intervene?

A: The protests in Iran began when business owners, hurt by sanctions and a falling currency, shut their stores to demonstrate against the struggling economy.

Iranians are demanding better lives in the face of a severe economic crisis — a crisis that the U.S. has played a central role in creating. What the protestors want is a better quality of life. But we know that peace and freedom don’t come from U.S. intervention. We learned that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. War kills people; it doesn’t save them. 

The U.S. and Israel are using the protests as a pretext for regime change. They have even gone as far as embedding Mossad agents inside the protests.

Bombing Iran will further destabilize the country, worsen conditions, and destroy more lives. The U.S. should instead lift the sanctions that have starved Iran of food and medical supplies and devalued its currency. 

Q: Should the U.S. attempt to change the Iranian government? Instead of military intervention, what steps could the U.S. government take today to de-escalate the situation?

A: Iran is a sovereign nation; its people should govern without foreign interference. Just as Americans oppose foreign interference in U.S. elections, the U.S. should avoid meddling in Iran's internal affairs. Instead, the U.S. should:

1. End the brutal economic sanctions on Iran that are strangling its economy.
2. Return to the table to negotiate a diplomatic settlement with Iran.
3. Withdraw U.S. troops from and close U.S. bases in West Asia.

Q: Why is 1953 a critical year in the history of U.S.-Iran relations?

A: In 1953, the U.S. backed a coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh, installing an authoritarian monarchy led by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The U.S. backed the coup because the Mossadegh government nationalized the Iranian oil industry. The  Shah’s dictatorship caused mass suffering for the Iranian people, creating the mass opposition that led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the anti-American sentiment that persists today.

Q: How is the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq connected to current tensions?

A: The 2003 invasion of Iraq destabilized the region, contributing to sectarian violence and the rise of groups like ISIS. This turmoil led to the formation of Shia militias, which have been recent U.S. targets. The invasion also shifted power to Shia leadership in Iraq, increasing Iranian influence in the region.

Q: Are there similarities between the U.S. buildup to the Iraq War and the current rhetoric on Iran? What were and are the real reasons?

A: Yes. Iran is being portrayed as a grave threat in the same way Iraq was before the 2003 invasion. U.S. leaders are using selective narratives to justify regime change in Iran, even though international agencies like the IAEA verified Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal before the U.S. withdrew from it. Similarly, one of the major reasons for the invasion of Iraq was oil reserves. Iran and Iraq hold the world’s third and fifth-largest oil reserves, respectively, which is a key reason for the U.S.’s longtime interest in regional power, including its support for Israel. Control over national resources has been at the center of U.S. regime change operations around the world, in Iran, Venezuela, Chile, the Congo, Libya, and beyond. Resource extraction for continuously environmentally catastrophic militarization remains at the core of U.S. interests.