Protesters rally downtown to say 'No War On Iran'
Susan Etscovitz from Brookline holds a sign as she sits with other at a noontime rally.
John Tlumacki/Globe Staff
'I'm an
Over the past two weeks, decades-old tensions between Israel and Iran once again erupted into warfare. On June 13, Israel struck nuclear facilities across Iran.
Advertisement
According to Iran's health ministry, this and subsequent strikes reportedly
Kimia Kahalzadeh, a 19-year-old UMass Amherst student and Iranian American who immigrated to the United States when she was 6, said she boarded a flight out of Tehran just hours before the bombing began on the evening of June 13. While in the air, she received frantic messages from family members following the attacks in real-time.
'My heart sank,' she said.
Her great-grandmother, who lived just two houses down from a bombed building in Tehran, fell during the blast and tore her ACL.
Advertisement
'She hasn't been able to walk,' Kahalzadeh said. 'Thankfully, her son was able to get her out of Tehran.'
Kahalzadeh said she hardly could believe she had walked through the same streets that were bombed just days later.
'These weren't military targets. There were homes. There were neighborhoods, communities, people,' she said.
In the following days, both countries exchanged further strikes until the conflict escalated on Saturday, when the US bombed three Iranian nuclear facilities.
A tentative ceasefire between Israel and Iran
was announced early on Tuesday, with both sides agreeing to halt offensive operations. But many protesters do not 'actually trust the ceasefire will hold' and continue to worry about an escalated conflict, Sharafi said.
Iranian-American organizer Ziba Cranmer said successive US administrations have failed to reckon with the country's role in shaping Iran's current circumstances.
'[The United States] got rid of a democratically elected leader that was wildly popular and very social justice oriented in the '50s,' Cranmer said, referencing former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh,who was overthrown in a US-backed military coup that cemented the reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
'We've spent trillions of dollars in the last two decades around war in the Middle East,' she added. 'People cannot afford to live in this city. I want them to fund housing vouchers, schools, and hospitals. I don't want to fund weapons.'
State Senator Jamie Eldridge,who represents the Middlesex and Worcester districts, urged Congress to 'pass the War Powers resolution and stop Donald Trump from taking us into another war in the Middle East.'
Advertisement
'It is absolutely critical that the American people rise up and say, 'Not in our name,'' said Eldridge.
Staffers from both Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Edward Markey's offices also spoke at the rally, voicing their bosses' opposition to what they called President Trump's 'unconstitutional' attack on Iran and expressing support for the War Powers resolution aimed at limiting further military action.
Sharafi said organizers plan to keep pushing for a permanent ceasefire. She sees a need for a 'robust anti-war movement' in the US.
'There's a lot of stress and trauma of not knowing what is going to happen. It's been great that we have allies here,' she said, pointing to the crowd of protesters. 'People in the [Middle East] don't deserve to constantly be bombed or threatened.'
Nathan Metcalf can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
44 minutes ago
- American Military News
US strikes on Iran may strengthen North Korea's nuclear resolve, experts warn
This article was originally published by Radio Free Asia and is reprinted with permission. The U.S. air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities will have reinforced North Korea's perception that possessing nuclear weapons is essential for its survival and may even prompt Pyongyang to accelerate the development of its nuclear capabilities, warned South Korean experts. U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday announced that the U.S. had conducted 'massive precision strikes' on three Iranian nuclear sites – Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan – that has 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities. The attack on Iran's nuclear sites marks the first offensive action in Israel's war with Iran – a major escalation in tensions in the Middle East – which South Korean analysts warn will make North Korea increasingly resistant to any diplomatic efforts or talks aimed at convincing Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program. 'North Korea must have thought it was a good idea to have nuclear weapons after seeing the U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities,' Jeong Seong-jang, deputy director of the Sejong Institute, told Radio Free Asia on Monday. In a statement Monday, a spokesperson for the North Korean Foreign Ministry criticized the U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities, saying it 'violated the U.N. Charter and international law, which have as their basic principles respect for sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs,' North Korea's state-run Korean Central News Agency reported. Despite calls by the U.S. and its allies for denuclearization, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has pushed for his country to bolster its nuclear capabilities to defend itself, warning earlier this year that 'confrontation with the most vicious hostile countries is inevitable.' While the 'hostile countries' were not named, North Korea regards the U.S. and its ally, South Korea, as its main enemies. In 2003, North Korea withdrew after acceding to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), shortly after the U.S. invaded Iraq. It cited concerns, at the time, that the U.S. was planning a preemptive strike against Pyongyang. 'North Korea is (likely to be) concerned that if it gives up its nuclear weapons, it will end up in a situation similar to Iran, and will not accept future proposals for denuclearization discussions.' He warned the strikes may even prompt North Korea – which conducted its first underground nuclear test in 2006 – to accelerate the development of nuclear submarines in an effort to secure so-called 'second-strike' capabilities – or the ability to launch retaliatory nuclear strikes after a preemptive one. Other South Korean experts echoed similar concerns. 'Kim Jong Un will probably order the relocation, hiding, and concealment of nuclear facilities, as well as the expansion of air defense systems,' Professor Nam Seong-wook of Sookmyung Women's University told RFA. In a social media post, Kim Dong-yeop, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies, argued that the U.S. strikes would cause North Korea to further solidify its perception that 'only possession of nuclear weapons can lead to survival' and provide much-needed validation for Pyongyang to hold on to its nuclear arsenal. Since 2006, North Korea has tested nuclear devices six times and has developed missiles believed to be capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. During his first term, Trump held historic summits with Kim Jong Un, hoping to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons in exchange for sanctions relief, but his high-level diplomacy ultimately failed to achieve a breakthrough. The North has continued to build its nuclear and missile programs. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that North Korea has assembled around 50 warheads and possesses enough fissile material to produce up to 40 more warheads and is accelerating the production of further fissile material. Earlier this year, Pyongyang reiterated that it has no intention of giving up its nuclear program. North Korea would now view diplomatic engagement with the United States as 'foolish' and any future negotiations of denuclearization as futile, Kim Dong-yeop wrote in a social media post on Sunday. 'North Korea will use the Iran situation as an excuse to strengthen its criticism of the South Korea-U.S. alliance and South Korea-U.S.-Japan security cooperation,' he added.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Suffers Legal Blow: ‘Grave Constitutional Violations'
On Friday, a federal judge blocked President Donald Trump's executive order targeting legal firm Susman Godfrey, ruling it was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." This is the fourth defeat in court Trump has suffered since imposing punitive measures on a number of law firms that either were involved in legal cases against him or represented his political rivals. Newsweek contacted the White House and Susman Godfrey for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and telephone respectively. In March, Trump issued a slew of executive orders targeting law firms resulting in a number taking legal action, though others struck deals with the White House which saw them agree to do unpaid work on behalf of causes the president supports. Critics argued Trump's move was unconstitutional and an assault on free expression, whilst the White House said it was needed to combat what it termed "dishonest" activity. The executive orders Trump imposed on various law firms, including Susman Godfrey, featured a number of punitive measures such as blocking their employees access to government buildings, terminating government contracts and suspending security clearance. Friday saw District Judge Loren AliKhan conclude that in the case of Susman Godfrey, Trump's order was "unconstitutional from beginning to end." She said: "Every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Trump's executive order targeting Susman Godfrey was already the subject of a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on April 15. Susman Godfrey is the fourth law firm targeted by Trump's executive orders that has successfully fought to get them blocked in court, following Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. The rulings were issued by judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. In a statement, Susman Godfrey said: "The Court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation. "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." In his ruling on WilmerHale's case, Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, said: "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. "The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence." Friday's judgement means the executive order targeting Susman Godfrey will not go into effect. The Trump administration has not said whether it plans to appeal. Related Articles Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security AdministrationHarvard Finds International Student Lifeline Amid Trump Visa Showdown 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Scores Iran War Powers Win
The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate on Friday rejected a Democratic effort to limit President Donald Trump's authority to launch further military action against Iran-just hours after Trump said he was weighing additional airstrikes. The chamber voted 53–47 against the war powers resolution, which would have required the president to seek congressional approval for any new hostilities against Iran. Every senator cast a vote, but the tally remained open late into the evening. In a notable split, Democrat John Fetterman broke with his party to vote "no," while RepublicanRand Paul crossed the aisle to vote "yes." The vote came days after Trump ordered airstrikes on three major Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, escalating tensions amid Iran's conflict with Israel. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at a U.S. military base in Qatar on Monday. Although Tehran and Tel Aviv agreed to a ceasefire on Monday, the Israel Defense Forces have since accused Iran of breaching that agreement and have threatened strikes on Tehran in response-an accusation Iran's military denies. The Senate's decision marks a clear victory for the White House and shows how much latitude both Republicans and some Democrats are willing to give Trump to take unilateral military action against Iran. The measure, sponsored by Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, would have invoked the War Powers Act-the 1973 law designed to limit a president's authority to enter armed conflicts without congressional consent. It would have required the White House to notify lawmakers and secure approval from both the House and Senate before U.S. forces could take any additional military action against Iran. Many Democrats, and even some Republicans, argued that the White House should have sought congressional approval before authorizing last weekend's strike. They point out that the Constitution gives Congress-not the president-the power to declare war, and say the War Powers Act exists to stop presidents from sidestepping that responsibility. Under the Constitution, war powers are divided but not always clearly defined. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power "to declare war," "raise and support armies," "provide and maintain a navy," and "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces." This means Congress has the explicit authority to decide when the U.S. goes to war. But the last time Congress formally declared war was World War II. Since then, military actions-from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq, Libya, and Syria-have typically been carried out under broad authorizations, U.N. resolutions, or purely at the president's discretion. At the same time, Article II, Section 2 names the president as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States." This gives the president broad authority to direct the military once it is in action. In 1973, after the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution to rein in presidential war-making. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and limits such deployments to 60 days-with a 30-day withdrawal period-unless Congress explicitly approves or declares war. Still, presidents of both parties have often argued that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, or they've simply ignored its requirements. During his first term, Trump twice vetoed measures passed under the War Powers Act, including one aimed specifically at restricting his ability to strike Iran. Congress wrestled with similar questions in 2011, when President Barack Obama ordered airstrikes on Libya without explicit approval, drawing criticism that he had exceeded his authority. This time, the Trump administration has enjoyed strong backing from Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Mike Johnson has gone so far as to argue that the War Powers Act itself is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Republican leaders have accused Democrats of using the issue for political gain and say the president needs flexibility to respond to threats quickly. "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight," said Senator John Barrasso, the chamber's No. 2 Republican, insisting that "national security moves fast" and that requiring consultation with Congress could "prevent the president from protecting us in the future." But some Republicans disagree. Senator Rand Paul cited the framers' original intent to keep war-making powers in the hands of Congress. "Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers that the executive is the branch most prone to war. Therefore, the Constitution, with studied care, vested that power in the legislature," Paul said, explaining his rare break with his party. For its part, the Trump administration argues the president already has all the authority he needs. In a letter to Congress this week, Trump cited his constitutional powers as commander in chief and his responsibility for foreign policy, framing the Iran strike as an act of "collective self-defense of our ally, Israel." Republican Senator John Barrasso said on the Senate floor: "Democrats, of course, rushed to turn this successful strike into a political fight. National security moves fast. That's why our Constitution says: 'Give the commander in chief real authority.'" Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said: "What would we have said if Iran or any other country had flown bombers over our country and struck our facilities? We would rightly call it what it was: an act of war." Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said: "War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person." Efforts to rein in Trump's military powers are also underway in the House, where similar measures have been introduced, but they face uncertain prospects in a Republican-led chamber unlikely to defy the White House. Related Articles Donald Trump Suffers Major Legal Blow: 'Grave Constitutional Violations'Exclusive: Democrat on How Trump's Tariffs Could Reshape Key Iowa RaceRepublican to Retire as Democrats Eye Potential House Seat: ReportsElon Musk Staffer 'Big Balls' Joining Social Security Administration 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
