As Trump threatens Iran and Netanyahu defies Washington, Abdul El-Sayed’s Michigan victory signals a progressive shift establishment pundits cannot ignore.

The embedded video contains solely the questions that WBAI’s We Decide’s Jenna Flanagan asked me. The entire panel discussion can be viewed here (Episode: 2026-08-10). We Decide is a joint Pacifica Affiliate, WBAI production, and the We Decide: America at the Crossroads with Jenna Flanagan.

Summary

The We Decide panel confronted three stories that expose the failure of conventional political thinking: Donald Trump’s reckless escalation toward Iran, a growing electoral appetite for unapologetic progressive politics, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s willingness to defy even a Republican U.S. president when Washington refuses to impose meaningful consequences. The discussion rejected the comfortable fiction that America can threaten catastrophic war abroad while Democrats retreat to a politically manufactured “middle” at home. The conversation’s central argument is clear: power responds to power, and progressive policy must be defended aggressively rather than apologetically.

• Trump’s threats toward Iran cannot be dismissed as mere bluster. The panel warned that American leaders have both the military capacity and the historical precedent to make extreme threats terrifyingly consequential. Trump has been repeatedly using threats of massive destruction against Iran during the 2026 conflict.

• Netanyahu demonstrated the limits of American influence when Washington refuses to use its leverage. He publicly rejected the latest U.S.-backed Gaza plan and insisted that Israeli forces would not withdraw until Hamas completely disarms.

• The political center is not the only route to independent voters. The panel argued that independents experience the same unaffordable healthcare, economic insecurity, and material pressures as everyone else—and can respond to policies that improve their lives.

• Abdul El-Sayed’s Michigan Senate primary victory gives that argument real electoral weight. The progressive defeated establishment-backed Rep. Haley Stevens by less than a percentage point and now faces Republican Mike Rogers.

• Texas offers another warning to pundits who insist Democrats must run scared. A late-July Texas Public Opinion Research poll put James Talarico ahead of Ken Paxton 45%–40%, with especially strong support among Black, Latino, and independent voters.

Democrats do not need another seminar on moving to the middle. They need a politics that materially improves people’s lives, confronts concentrated power, rejects reckless militarism, and makes a confident case for progressive governance.

PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUBSCRIBER TODAY

Countering billionaires—and soon trillionaires—is hard, probing work. They flood the zone with propaganda, policy distortions, and economic fallacies rooted in the Powell Memo and financed by concentrated wealth. We work every day to answer that machinery with truth, context, and critical thinking. But independent media cannot survive on conviction alone. It needs support from people who understand the stakes. Please become a paid subscriber today. Your support keeps this work alive, expands its reach, and helps build a media ecosystem that serves people, not plutocrats. This is not charity. It is an investment in truth, democracy, and the public good.

Subscribe now

One Time Donation

Premium Content (Complimentary)

Trump, Netanyahu, and the Progressive Shift Pundits Still Refuse to See

Something important is happening in American politics, and much of the pundit class still insists on interpreting it through an obsolete ideological map.

On WBAI’s We Decide, Jenna Flanagan’s political panel examined three developments that appear separate but actually share a common thread: Donald Trump’s increasingly dangerous confrontation with Iran, Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of a U.S.-backed Gaza agreement, and the success of progressive candidates who refuse to campaign from the defensive crouch that Democratic consultants have prescribed for decades.

Start with Iran.

Trump has repeatedly used extraordinarily destructive language toward the country. saying that Iran could be “taken out in one night,” while subsequent reporting documented threats against Iranian nuclear and energy infrastructure and repeated cycles of escalation and retreat. The panel therefore treated his threats as something the public cannot casually dismiss. The United States commands a military apparatus capable of turning presidential bravado into a humanitarian catastrophe.

That danger becomes even greater when nuclear rhetoric enters the political conversation. The panel made a sobering historical point: Americans cannot pretend that their government is somehow institutionally incapable of using nuclear weapons. The United States remains the only nation ever to have used atomic bombs in war. That history makes presidential annihilation rhetoric especially irresponsible.

Then there is Benjamin Netanyahu.

Netanyahu publicly rejected Trump’s latest Gaza plan, declaring that Israel would not withdraw until Hamas completely disarms, a rejection of Trump’s 15-point proposal. It is a fundamental dispute over withdrawal and disarmament.

That episode illustrates a fundamental problem in the U.S.-Israel relationship. Washington supplies extraordinary diplomatic, military, and financial support, yet American leaders routinely behave as though they possess little leverage over Israeli policy. The panel’s argument was sharper: nothing changes until U.S. policy changes. An alliance cannot mean giving another government virtually unlimited freedom while American taxpayers finance the consequences.

But the most politically revealing portion of the conversation concerned the supposed Democratic imperative to “move to the middle.”

Abdul El-Sayed just shattered that assumption in Michigan. He defeated Rep. Haley Stevens, the establishment-backed candidate, in the Democratic Senate primary. El-Sayed’s margin was narrow—less than one percentage point—but a win is a win, particularly after a contest shaped by enormous institutional and outside spending.

And Michigan is not occurring in isolation. The progressive-establishment clashes are also shaping major Democratic contests in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Meanwhile, in Texas—a state Democrats have been told for decades is always just beyond reach—a July poll placed James Talarico five points ahead of Republican Ken Paxton, with Talarico performing strongly among independents.

That matters.

Independents are not laboratory specimens programmed to reject progressive economics. They need healthcare. They pay rent. They buy groceries. They worry about wages. They send children to schools. They experience corporate price extraction just like Democrats and Republicans do.

As the panel argued, Democrats should stop passively defending progressive ideas and start actively explaining why those ideas work. Medicare for All, stronger labor rights, affordable housing, public investment, progressive taxation, and limits on corporate power are not ideological ornaments. They address material problems.

The political center did not create Social Security, Medicare, labor protections, civil rights, or voting rights. Movements pushed political institutions beyond the boundaries that cautious elites once considered acceptable.

Progressives win when they make people believe government can actually do something for them.

That is the shift the pundits should be discussing.

[INTERVIEWS SUBSTACK DROP-IN]

One Time Donation

Subscribe now