logo
‘There's a significant lack of knowledge': Iranian American legislator on countries' tangled history amid conflict

‘There's a significant lack of knowledge': Iranian American legislator on countries' tangled history amid conflict

The Guardian5 hours ago

Arizona congresswoman Yassamin Ansari brings an unusually personal perspective to the US's fraught relationship with Iran. The daughter of two Iranian parents who fled their homeland – her father as a student in the 1970s who couldn't return after the 1979 revolution, her mother as a 17-year-old in 1981 escaping the new regime's restrictions on women – Ansari grew up immersed in the complexities of US-Iran relations.
This deep familiarity with both Iranian domestic politics and the tangled history between Washington and Tehran has given the Democratic freshman a distinctive edge in debates over military strikes, sanctions and diplomatic engagement.
As tensions teetered for 12 days, culminating in the direct US bombardment on Iranian nuclear facilities, Ansari finds herself navigating between hawkish calls for regime change and concerns about empowering Iran's authoritarian government.
We spoke to Ansari about how her background influences her approach to one of foreign policy's most intractable issues.
It's a topic I not only grew up learning about at home but also studied formally during my undergraduate years. I have a minor in Iranian studies, I speak the language [Farsi], and I wrote my college thesis on Iran's nuclear breakout capacity. So I've been working on and thinking about these issues for a long time.
When it comes to US-Iran policy – especially during the Trump administration – I think there has been a significant lack of knowledge. And even within Congress, there's often limited information about the historical and political context – not just since 1979, but also what led up to that point and how we arrived at the current situation.
I don't believe the strikes were the right move for several reasons. First and foremost, we wouldn't even be in this position if Trump hadn't unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA [in 2018]. That agreement would have prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and created a framework for diplomacy. Even after the withdrawal, we were in the midst of negotiations. Based on briefings I've received from subject matter experts, those negotiations were progressing – until the US suddenly shifted the goalposts and demanded zero uranium enrichment, which had never been part of the deal. That effectively derailed talks.
Beyond that, Trump never made the case to Congress or the American public. There was no presentation of intelligence justifying strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. In a country with such a fraught history of military interventions in the Middle East – from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup in Iran to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – that lack of transparency is especially dangerous.
I'm not familiar with all the specifics of that proposal, but I see what you're getting at. And I do think Trump's actions have emboldened the Islamic Republic, a regime that is deeply unpopular with the majority of Iranians. Since the recent escalation, we've seen reports that hundreds of people have been arrested on espionage charges – charges often used by the regime to imprison political opponents. Iran's most notorious prison, Evin, is full of some of the country's brightest minds, including Nobel laureates.
It's heartbreaking. Trump's actions have not only hurt US foreign policy interests and increased the risk of a wider war, but they've also given the regime cover to intensify its domestic repression. During the past two weeks, we've even seen the government black out the internet to prevent communication with the outside world. This is a regime focused entirely on its own survival – and it will do whatever it takes, including more arrests and crackdowns. We should be supporting Iranian civilians, not strengthening the regime or risking another war.
Exactly. I think any sort of US-led military intervention or regime change would be a terrible mistake. I was genuinely terrified during the days Trump was making contradictory threats – one moment urging civilians in Tehran to evacuate, the next talking about regime change, and then suddenly calling for peace. That kind of unpredictability is dangerous.
There are also groups like the MEK – a cult-like organization that was once designated a terrorist group by the US – that are trying to position themselves as the alternative. They've paid people like John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani to support them, but they could be even more repressive than the current regime.
That said, there are ways the US could support the Iranian people – like helping provide secure internet access or advocating for the release of political prisoners. But instead we're seeing more crackdowns because the regime feels threatened and is reacting in the only way it knows: repression.
Not directly, but many of us are still pushing for the War Powers Resolution to come to a vote so members of Congress can make their positions clear. It's important that we reassert Congress's constitutional authority over decisions of war and peace. Unfortunately, the Republican lead on the resolution, Representative Thomas Massie, recently said he no longer sees the need for [the resolution] due to the ceasefire. I strongly disagree. The resolution isn't just about this moment – it's about reaffirming that only Congress has the power to declare war, as the constitution lays out. Trump should never have taken unilateral military action. We've already seen the consequences. I know the Senate is moving forward with it, and it'll be important to see where key leaders stand.
You're right, I'm definitely not the spokesperson for all Iranian Americans, but I can share some perspective.
Nearly all Iranian Americans strongly oppose the regime. That's because most of our families came here after fleeing it, either during the revolution in 1979 or in the years since. But there's a wide range of views on what the solution should be.
Some Iranian Americans, including a sizable portion who voted for Trump, believed he would help topple the regime. I remember when Trump posted 'Make Iran great again', a segment of the diaspora was genuinely excited. Many of those people support the son of the former Shah as a potential leader.
Others – myself included – strongly oppose US-led regime change. The US has a bad track record in this region. The 1953 coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mosaddeq is still remembered bitterly by many Iranians. He was democratically elected and wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, but the US and UK didn't want that. So they overthrew him. Then came the Shah, then the revolution, and now this regime.
So while we all oppose the current regime, there's disagreement about what comes next and how to get there. I think most Iranian Americans fear war and want a better future for Iranians – without more violence, repression or foreign intervention.
My dad came to the US in the early 1970s on a student visa to attend the University of Oregon for his engineering degree. He planned to go back but once the revolution happened, it wasn't safe to return, so he stayed.
My mom fled in 1981. Women's rights had already been severely restricted – forced hijab, schools being shut down. She happened to be a US citizen because her father had done a medical residency in the US in the 60s. So her parents sent her here alone at 17 to live with a family in Delaware.
She talks about it a lot, about how she and her family opposed the revolution even though it was popular at the time. Coming here alone was traumatic. She went through deep depression for years before the rest of her family could join her. That experience shaped a lot of how I was raised. She always stressed not taking freedom and democracy for granted, and that's something I carry with me in my work today, especially when I see authoritarian threats here in the US.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Insane and destructive': Elon Musk resumes attacks on Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
'Insane and destructive': Elon Musk resumes attacks on Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'

NBC News

time44 minutes ago

  • NBC News

'Insane and destructive': Elon Musk resumes attacks on Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'

Elon Musk launched a series of attacks on Saturday against a massive spending bill that would fund much of President Donald Trump's agenda, renewing his criticisms as Senate Republicans rush to pass the package, dubbed the "Big, Beautiful Bill," in order to meet a July 4th deadline set by Trump. "The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!," Musk wrote in a post on X. "Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future." The billionaire and former Trump adviser amplified a poll that suggests the "big, beautiful bill" is politically unpopular due to its budgetary effects, a notion that was affirmed this month by several separate surveys. Forty percent of Republican respondents to a recent NBC News Decision Desk poll said "ensuring the national debt is reduced" is the most important issue as Congress considers the Trump-backed mega bill. Overall, a majority of respondents said maintaining current spending levels on programs like Medicaid is the most important issue. "Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party," Musk wrote on X. Musk has long been a critic of Trump's "big, beautiful bill," balking at its expected impact on the national deficit and arguing that it would offset government savings brought in by the Department of Government Efficiency, an organization Trump appointed him to lead earlier this year. He maintained that opinion Saturday, expressing it through several posts on his platform, X — including one post that attacked the bill's expected effect on the deficit "as "putting America in the fast lane to debt slavery!" Trump previously argued that Musk only opposed the legislation because of provisions aimed at stripping away electric vehicle tax credits. Musk today called a provision in the bill that he framed as targeting clean energy production "incredibly destructive to America." The Tesla chief's departure from the White House, where he formally served as a special government employee, came a day after he publicly expressed his criticisms of the bill during an interview with "CBS Sunday Morning." 'I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, I don't know if it can be both,' Musk said at the time. While Musk no longer commands similar levels of influence in Washington, his past opposition to the bill emboldened Republicans lawmakers, some of whom, like Musk, took issue with its expected $4 trillion increase to the national deficit. The renewed criticism by Musk comes as Senate Republicans rush to whip enough votes to pass the 940-page megabill amid breaks in the party over certain provisions, including expected cuts to Medicaid that could strip funding from rural hospitals. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C, cited the loss of rural hospital funding in explaining his decision to oppose the bill. Earlier this month, shortly after the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill, Musk urged his more than 200 million followers on X to tell Congress to "kill the bill."

Longtime State Department spokesman, diplomat Richard Boucher, dies at 73
Longtime State Department spokesman, diplomat Richard Boucher, dies at 73

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Longtime State Department spokesman, diplomat Richard Boucher, dies at 73

Richard Boucher, who served for more than a decade as the spokesman for the State Department and assistant secretary of state for public affairs, has died at age 73, according to friends and family. He died on Thursday in a hospital in northern Virginia after a battle with an aggressive form of cancer, according to two people close to his family. Boucher had been the face of U.S. foreign policy at the State Department podium across administrations throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, beginning in the George H.W. Bush presidency and continuing through Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's terms in office. Boucher served as the spokesman for secretaries of state James Baker, Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. In a career that took him from the Peace Corps though Africa and Asia as well as in Washington, Boucher also served as U.S. Consul General Hong Kong during the 1997 handover of the territory from Britain to China, and later used the skills he learned there to help orchestrate an end to the U.S.-China spy plane crisis in early 2001. After leaving the spokesman's job, Boucher became assistant secretary of state for state for South and Central Asia and was then ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retired veteran CBS journalist Charles Wolfson, who worked with Boucher for years, lauded him as an effective State Department spokesman but also a valued professional colleague and friend. 'He was a superb diplomat, an excellent spokesman and an even better human being,' Wolfson said.

Senate Republicans scrambling to pass tax-and-spend bill by Trump deadline
Senate Republicans scrambling to pass tax-and-spend bill by Trump deadline

The Guardian

time2 hours ago

  • The Guardian

Senate Republicans scrambling to pass tax-and-spend bill by Trump deadline

The US Senate is preparing for a key procedural vote Saturday as Republicans race to pass Donald Trump's package of tax breaks, spending cuts and bolstered deportation funds by his Fourth of July deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all Republican senators are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8tn in Trump tax breaks. Before the expected vote to advance the measure, the White House released a statement saying it 'strongly supports passage' of the bill that 'implements critical aspects' of the president's agenda. Trump himself was at his golf course in Virginia on Saturday with Republican senators, including one of the holdouts, Rand Paul of Kentucky. 'It's time to get this legislation across the finish line,' the Senate majority leader, John Thune, said. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday, and senators are expected to grind through the days ahead with hours of potentially all-night debate and countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. With the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board in the face of essentially unified opposition from Democrats. Elon Musk, the billionaire Trump donor who came out in strong opposition to the House version of the bill, denounced the Senate draft on his social media platform, X, on Saturday. 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Musk wrote above a comment from a green energy expert who pointed out that the bill raises taxes on new wind and solar projects. 'Utterly insane and destructive,' Musk added. 'It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.' Bernie Moreno, the Republican senator from Ohio, opened the day's session with an impassioned defense of the package that he said had been misrepresented by its critics. 'Read it for yourself,' he said. Senate Democrats intend to do just that, with the minority leader, Chuck Schumer, announcing on social media Saturday afternoon that his party will force the entire bill to be read aloud before a final vote on passage can take place. Speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer said Republicans had released the bill 'in the dead of night' and were rushing to pass it before the public fully knows what's in it. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic-policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including on Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350bn to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving healthcare through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives worried about the nation's debt are pushing for steeper cuts. Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, said he remains concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. Rand Paul has opposed the measure on the grounds that it will raise the nation's debt limit by $5tn. And Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd rule', which bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 Republican edge, and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25bn fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan congressional budget office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without healthcare and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the package would cost the poorest Americans $1,600, the CBO said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store