On the Sunday morning interview programs of April 20, Washington’s position on the war in Iran came into full view. There is no meaningful split between the parties.
Amos Hochstein, a senior energy adviser in the Biden administration who brokered the November 2024 Lebanon ceasefire, said on CBS’s Face the Nation that he was “supportive” of Trump joining the strikes and that the Biden team had war-gamed similar attacks because “that may have had to happen under our watch.” “We did war games,” he said. “We did some practice runs on what it would look like.”
That is not opposition. It is an admission that the war does not come down to who holds office.
The same morning, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz defended Trump’s threat to destroy Iran’s power plants and bridges — infrastructure on which 94 million people depend. He cited the Allied firebombing of Germany as precedent. No anchor challenged him. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, pressed on whether a president should threaten to wipe out an entire civilization, avoided a direct answer and defended Trump’s language.
The division in Washington is over tone and presentation. The policy itself is shared.
The votes in Congress told the same story. On April 17, the House voted on a War Powers Resolution to end the war. It failed 213 to 214, with Democrat Jared Golden casting the deciding vote against it. In the Senate, a parallel measure failed 47 to 52.
Democrats have raised concerns about Trump’s handling of the war. They have not acted to stop it. Arizona Democrat Yassamin Ansari filed impeachment articles on April 15 over the Feb. 28 strike that destroyed a girls’ school in Minab, killing more than 160 children. Her effort stands alone, with no backing from the party’s leadership.
The pattern is consistent. Objections are raised. The war continues.
Hochstein’s remarks point to why. The war was not launched because of one administration or one decision. It flows from the position Iran occupies in the world system — a major oil-producing country that broke from U.S. control in the 1979 revolution, when a mass uprising overthrew a U.S.-backed monarchy. That break has never been accepted. Decades of sanctions, pressure and threats followed. The military option is part of that same process.
Both parties speak for the same ruling class interests, which is why the disagreement is over how the war is carried out, not whether it should be.
The forms of opposition remain — hearings, votes, televised criticism — but they do not function to stop the war. They function to manage its political presentation while it continues.
On April 20, that reality was stated openly. The war on Iran is being carried forward with bipartisan support.
Join the Struggle-La Lucha Telegram channel