The US Bombing of Iran—How Nonprofits and Civil Society Must Respond

The ceasefire that President Donald Trump imposed on June 22 ended—so far—12 days of Israeli assaults against Iran, Iran’s retaliatory strikes, and a US attack that dropped fourteen 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bombs on Iran. The terms of the ceasefire remain obscure. Since it began, Trump has threatened to attack Iran again. We still don’t know whether the shaky pause will last.

But how does this affect nonprofits and others who focus on social justice? It turns out there is a deep connection between the money that goes to the military and the money taken from domestic needs, such as food stamps and Medicaid, which are on the chopping block in Trump’s so-called Big, Beautiful Bill.

The Basics of US Militarism

Militarism has a long and terrible history in this country. Presidents regularly launch military actions, and Congress typically does little to stop them—from Vietnam to Central America, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and more.

There is a deep connection between the money that goes to the military and the money taken from domestic needs, such as food stamps and Medicaid.

The rationale varies. Sometimes, strategic economic considerations, such as oil, are the real reason, while false claims like “weapons of mass destruction” are cited. Sometimes, the rationale is about addressing an ostensible threat: “Kill them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” This seems to be the case with the Iran bombings. Or sometimes, alleged humanitarian justifications seep in—such as promoting democracy, protecting women, stopping human rights violations, and so on. Such attacks have shaped US foreign policy for generations, and since World War II, have routinely failed to accomplish the stated goals.

Trump’s bombing in Iran bolsters this long-standing pattern. But each president offers their own twist. For Trump, his vision seems rooted in personal aggrandizement. While it got little coverage in the US press, just 10 days after his inauguration, the United States began bombing Somalia, one of the poorest countries in the world. Admiral James W. Kilby, Trump’s acting chief of naval operations described the campaign as “the largest air strike in the history of the world—125,000 pounds from a single aircraft carrier.” Jethro Norman, an analyst with the Danish Institute for International Studies, described Somalia as “an ideal stage” for Trump, “as it combines high firepower, low oversight and little U.S. domestic political risk.…The logic wasn’t just strategic; it was theatrical.”

Trump loves theater—and certainly understands the centrality of narrative. Within minutes after the sudden US attack on Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, he exulted that Iran’s nuclear sites had been “completely and totally obliterated.” The next morning, General Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, walked back Trump’s remarks, making clear it was still “way too early” to say what the effect had been. But it was the narrative that was important. If the first report was that the nuclear sites were “totally obliterated,” that’s what people will remember.

Militarism and Authoritarianism: Connecting the Dots

It’s not news that the country is in the midst of an authoritarian moment. And that reality creates a need to rethink things like militarism and how to build movements that challenge it, while strengthening the broadest movements against authoritarianism and fascism.

Certainly not all of the militarism that continues to shape US foreign policy is explained in Trump’s narratives. In the US press, we haven’t heard many stories explaining how Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran would not have been possible without the massive amount of money and weapons, plus political protection, that the United States has provided Israel for decades.

Last year alone, at the height of Israel’s genocide in Gaza, the United States gave Israel $17.9 billion of our tax dollars—financing almost 40 percent of its entire military spending. Israel deployed those same US-provided weapons against Iran. Most media and political leaders don’t mention that part of the US role in Israel’s war. As a result, many people in this country mistakenly date US involvement with Israel’s war against Iran as beginning only when US B-2 bombers attacked the nuclear sites.

Proposed spending for the Pentagon, nuclear weapons, and homeland security…amounts to 69 percent of the total US proposed discretionary spending.

Trump has long campaigned against this country’s “forever wars.” But for years before he was a candidate for president, there were major exceptions, including a frequent demand for using military force against Iran.

Despite his claims to be against “forever wars,” and despite his MAGA base’s widespread opposition to those wars, militarism thrives under Trump. He continues his predecessors’ habit of increasing military spending every year.

Trump’s proposed military budget for 2026—over one trillion dollars or $3,000 per US person—includes an extra $150 billion to the Pentagon. The increase alone could pay instead for Veterans Administration care for 8.82 million veterans. And if you look at the proposed spending for the Pentagon, nuclear weapons, and homeland security (much of it for Immigration and Customs Enforcement), that militarized budget amounts to 69 percent of the total US proposed discretionary spending.

Trump’s predecessors all violated US constitutional and legal requirements, as well as international law, when they launched military attacks. But often they went through at least performative motions of some kind of consultations with Congress or the United Nations, even though they ultimately went to war without the authorization of either.

Trump, on the other hand, approved the B-2 bomber flights to attack Iran in secret, without feeling any need to work ahead of time to build popular support—partly because he knew he could count on the powerful legacy of Islamophobia and racism toward Iran that has been overwhelmingly dominant in US popular culture since the Iranian revolution of 1979. Trump’s team took for granted that he would remain unconstrained by Congress or anyone else. And so far, that assessment has proven correct.

Congressional resistance has been largely performative and, until now, at least, ineffectual. Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) Senate resolution vote after the US bombing to prevent any further military action against Iran garnered 47 votes—an important accomplishment—but still fell short of what was needed. The House version, led by Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), has not yet come to a vote.

Meanwhile, it’s far too early to breathe a sigh of relief due to the fragile ceasefire between Iran and Israel more or less holding. Israel has a long history of violating ceasefires, including those imposed by the United States. Iran may not have finished its response to the 12 days of Israeli bombing, the more than 1,000 Iranians killed, and the unprovoked US attack on their nuclear facilities. Whether a specific attack becomes a “forever” war may not, ultimately, be up to Trump’s team or US policymakers.

The bottom line: Militarism remains powerful in US politics. Kaine’s resolution was defeated, which the Trump administration may read as permission to attack again. Moreover, despite rhetoric against “forever wars,” each strike rolls the dice anew.

And, in case it needs to be said, genocide continues in Gaza. Recently, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported the newest estimate of the Gaza death toll to be nearly 100,000—or 4 percent of the entire Gazan population.

What Can Movements Do?

Of course, it is the power and strength of social movements that will ultimately determine whether US military actions, direct and indirect, can be stopped. The huge distortion of federal spending caused by Congress allocating 69 percent of the discretionary budget to war and repression is one of the biggest reasons for the shredding of the social fabric across the United States. Defending civil society requires cutting the military budget.

One step to take is to support anti-militarism and anti-war organizations directly, like Dissenters, NIAC (National Iranian American Council), Jewish Voice for Peace, and Peace Action, that are taking leadership roles in challenging the military budgets and working to stop US-backed wars and occupations.

An example of providing that kind of support is an organization I have long been affiliated with, the Institute for Policy Studies, whose National Priorities Project provides resources including information on military-domestic spending budget trade-offs, and whose public scholars provide educational resources and work with activist partners in climate, immigrant rights, and other movements to help shape strategies and campaigns to challenge militarism.

Sustaining big multi-issue membership groups—such as those who have led recent national protests like the “No Kings” rallies, those focused on specific domestic demands (National Domestic Workers Alliance, United We Dream), and faith-based organizations bringing moral urgency to the movement (such as the Poor People’s Campaign)—is crucial. And part of that work will necessarily be to integrate anti-militarism and internationalism into their vision of a good society for all.