#war

Though they speak of the war’s failure—the lack of strategy, the lack of preparation, the absence of an end goal, and the confusion surrounding its objectives—very few in mainstream media have taken what should have been the obvious moral position: that the war itself is criminal, unjustifiable, and illegal under international law.

That position should have been obvious the moment the first bomb was dropped over Tehran. The aggression—particularly while negotiations between Iran and the United States were underway under Omani mediation—was ethically indefensible.

Any remaining doubt should have disappeared when US-Israeli strikes hit civilian areas, including schools and residential districts in the city of Minab in southern Iran, killing hundreds of civilians, mostly children and women.

This moral silence is not new. In fact, it has often been masked by a familiar rhetorical device: the selective invocation of women’s rights. 

In nearly every US war on Arab and Muslim countries, women’s rights have featured heavily in the propaganda used to justify war. The vast majority of mainstream media organizations, think tanks, human rights groups, and activists—even those who rejected military interventionism on principle—agreed at least on that particular premise: the urgency of women’s rights.

The same scenario was repeated in Gaza during the ongoing genocide, where UN agencies estimate that women and children make up roughly 70 percent of the more than 72,200 Palestinians killed since October 2023. According to data compiled by ‘UN Women’ and Gaza’s health authorities, the total includes an estimated 33,000 women and girls.

Yet mainstream media continues to center Israeli claims about abuses of women’s rights by Hamas in Gaza, as if the tens of thousands of women killed and maimed by Israeli bombardment were not even worthy of serious consideration.

The same pattern is now repeating itself in Iran. The administration of Donald Trump—a man known for his degrading views and actions toward women—has been allowed, along with war criminal Netanyahu, to frame the war against Iran as a struggle for women’s rights and liberation.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent wrote. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” That sentence alone is politically explosive. It does not merely criticize tactics. It indicts the rationale of the war itself. Then Kent went further. “Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran,” he wrote. And then the bluntest line of all: “This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.”

Someone in his position had access to intelligence, internal deliberations, threat assessments and strategic discussions that the public will never see in full. When such a figure concludes that there was “no imminent threat,” that judgment is not casual. It does not prove everything, but it gives weight to the suspicion that the public case for war was not merely weak, but manufactured.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation on Tuesday, citing his concerns about the justification for military strikes in Iran and saying he “cannot in good conscience” back the Trump administration’s war.

“Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby,” Kent said in a statement posted on social media, making claims President Donald Trump has denied.

Kent, a former Green Beret and political candidate with connections to right-wing extremists, was confirmed last July on a 52-44 vote. As head of the National Counterterrorism Center, he was in charge of an agency tasked with analyzing and detecting terrorist threats.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has issued a statement condemning the trend of Israeli forces deliberately targeting Lebanese health care workers in the ongoing war against southern Lebanon, calling it a “tragic development” in the escalating crisis.

The Israeli narrative is, as ever, “Hezbollah.” Though they offered no evidence to support the assertion, the IDF is claiming that Hezbollah is in some way using ambulances for military operations in resistance of the ongoing Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon.

Though no evidence is available of Hezbollah using ambulances to carry out military attacks, there is actually substantial evidence of the IDF using ambulances themselves to carry out ground raids against Hezbollah, with a large raid against Hezbollah in Nabi Chit involving IDF commandos in Lebanese ambulances.

Attacking ambulances and killing health care workers is, of course, illegal under international humanitarian law. Though there are some situations whereby specific ambulances can lose protected status, the blanket targeting of an entire nations ambulance stock on the notion that some of them might secretly be in league with Hezbollah is plainly not allowed. Moreover, the use of ambulances to disguise military forces, as Israel specifically did in Nabi Chit, is itself a violation of international law.

The Global Peace Index (GPI) is a report produced by the Australia-based NGO Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) which measures the relative position of nations' and regions' peacefulness.[2] The GPI ranks 163 independent states and territories (collectively accounting for 99.7 per cent of the world's population) according to their levels of peacefulness.

The 2025 GPI indicates Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Portugal, Denmark, Slovenia, Finland, the Czech Republic, and Japan to be the most peaceful countries, and Russia, Ukraine, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, South Sudan, Israel, Mali, Myanmar, Burkina Faso, Somalia, the Central African Republic, and North Korea to be the least peaceful.

In 2017, 23 indicators were used to establish peacefulness scores for each country. The indicators were originally selected with the assistance of an expert panel in 2007 and are reviewed by the expert panel on an annual basis.

An additional aim of the GPI database is to facilitate deeper study of the concept of positive peace, or those attitudes, institutions, and structures that drive peacefulness in society. The GPI also examines relationships between peace and reliable international measures, including democracy and transparency, education and material well-being. As such, it seeks to understand the relative importance of a range of potential determinants, or "drivers", which may influence the nurturing of peaceful societies, both internally and externally.[

Researchers have determined that Positive Peace, which includes the attitudes, institutions, and structures that pre-empt conflict and facilitate functional societies, is the main driver of peace. The eight pillars of positive peace are well-functioning government, sound business environment, acceptance of the rights of others, good relations with neighbours, free flow of information, high levels of human capital, low levels of corruption, and equitable distribution of resources.

Although the country suspended its formal nuclear weapons program in 2003,[47] in December 2024, the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA reported enrichment to levels approaching weapons-grade. It also found an unprecedented stockpile of highly enriched uranium without a credible civilian purpose, giving Iran the capacity to produce enough fissile material for multiple bombs on short notice.

In 2015, however, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed, imposing strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.[58] In 2018, the United States withdrew from the agreement, with President Donald Trump stating that "the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction: that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program".[59] The US also contended that the agreement was inadequate because it did not impose limitations on Iran's ballistic missile program,[60] and failed to curb its backing of proxy groups.

The first round was held on April 12, 2025, in Muscat, Oman... An Iranian news outlet reported that during the talks in Oman, Iran proposed a three-step plan to reach a deal with the United States:

Iran would agree to temporarily lower its uranium enrichment to 3.67% in return for access to frozen financial assets in the United States and authorization to export its oil.
Iran would permanently halt high-level uranium enrichment, restore inspections by the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA, and commit to implementing the Additional Protocol, allowing for surprise inspections at undeclared sites. These steps would be taken if the United States lifts further sanctions and persuades Britain, Germany, and France not to trigger the snapback of UN sanctions against Tehran.
The U.S. Congress would approve the nuclear agreement and Washington would lift both primary and secondary sanctions, while Iran would transfer its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium to a third country.[90]

Iran had reportedly also proposed steps to deescalate tensions, including a pledge to disarm and freeze the activities of Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hashd al-Shaabi.[91]

On May 1, defense secretary Hegseth posted that Iran will pay for supporting Houthis attacks on merchant ships in Red Sea crisis. President Trump warned of secondary sanctions on entities buying any oil or petrochemicals from Iran. Rubio warned to walk away from nuclear enrichment. Araghchi canceled the May 4 meeting citing a "technical reason".[107][108][109] Trump has called for the full dismantling of nuclear enrichment.[110] Iran then unveiled a new ballistic missile and threatened to hit US military bases.[111][112] Revolutionary Guard General Salami warned that IRGC would open hell gates on invaders.[113]

The fourth round of negotiations, originally scheduled for May 3, 2025, in Rome, was postponed amid rising tensions. Iranian officials cited U.S. sanctions, military action against the Houthis, and what they described as "contradictory behaviour and provocative statements" by Washington as contributing factors, while stating that a new date would depend on the U.S. approach.

On May 7, 2025, ahead of the 2025 visit by Donald Trump to the Middle East, U.S. officials reported that president Donald Trump had decided that United States federal agencies would refer to the Persian Gulf as the "Arabian Gulf" or the "Gulf of Arabia" and had plans to make it official during a planned visit to Saudi Arabia later in May.[116][117] This plan received outrage and condemnation from Iranians and the Iranian government.

According to unnamed Iranian officials, Iran proposed a joint nuclear-enrichment project with regional Arab states and U.S. investment as an alternative to dismantling its nuclear program. U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff denied this was being discussed. The plan's feasibility remained uncertain given regional tensions and the lack of diplomatic ties between Iran and the U.S. for 45 years.[

On May 14, 52 senators and 177 congressmen wrote a letter to Trump to reject any deal that would allow Iran to continue uranium enrichment, stating that no agreement should leave open a path to nuclear weapons.[140] On May 14, Iran ratified the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime as part of its efforts to meet the FATF Action Plan requirements for improving its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing system.

Khamenei advisor Shamkhani responded to Trump's offer and said that the Iranian government was ready to sign the nuclear deal in exchange for the quick removal of all financial sanctions,[145] whilst at the same time criticizing Trump's rhetoric and ongoing threats, saying: “He speaks of an olive branch, but we see only barbed wire.”[145] Trump confirmed that the U.S. was very close to reaching a nuclear deal with Iran and that he preferred a peaceful solution over military action.[146] However, Iranian officials denied having received a new U.S. proposal and insisted they would not give up their right to enrich uranium.

The Trump administration has increasingly demanded that Iran abandon uranium enrichment, making this a central issue.[

On May 20, CNN reported Israel was preparing to strike Iranian nuclear facilities,[154] an action that would mark a clear break with Trump's efforts.[154] Iran warned that any Israeli attack would be met with a “devastating and decisive response.”[155] The day after, the U.S. imposed new measures targeting Iran's construction sector, linked to the IRGC, and restricted 10 materials tied to its nuclear and military programs.

The fifth round of talks, held on May 23 in Rome, ended without a breakthrough, though both sides agreed to continue discussions. U.S. officials described the talks as constructive but emphasized that significant differences remained, particularly over the demand from the U.S. that Iran dismantle its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintained that while it was open to limiting enrichment levels, giving up enrichment entirely was unacceptable and would collapse the negotiations.

In the weeks leading up to the fifth round, tensions between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had increased over the U.S. decision to engage in nuclear talks with Iran, which Israel viewed as a serious threat to its security and regional interests.[159] Israel strongly opposed the negotiations, lobbying against diplomatic efforts and threatening unilateral military action, including potential strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a position critics warned could endanger diplomacy and heighten regional tensions.

On June 2, Reuters reported that Iran was preparing to decline the U.S. proposal.[167][168] After speculation that Iran might be allowed limited uranium enrichment under a possible deal, Senator Schumer demanded that Witkoff testify before Congress to clarify whether any such side agreement existed.[169] The administration publicly maintained that Iran would not be permitted to enrich uranium.[169] Trump also declared firmly that the deal would prohibit it.[170] Khamenei responded that uranium enrichment is central to Iran's nuclear program and he rejected U.S. demands to halt it.[171]

On June 9, Iran rejected the Trump administration's proposal for a new nuclear deal but announced plans to present a counteroffer through Omani mediators. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei called the U.S. proposal unacceptable and not aligned with the ongoing negotiations. The main points of disagreement included Iran's right to continue domestic uranium enrichment, the handling of its stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, and the conditions for lifting sanctions against Iran. While Trump demanded the full dismantlement of Iran's enrichment program, Iranian leaders insisted that enrichment was non-negotiable. The latest U.S. offer reportedly included assistance in building nuclear power reactors and allowed limited enrichment until a regional consortium facility becomes operational.[174][175] A central demand from Iran was that sanctions relief must bring tangible economic benefits. Baghaei emphasized that this includes guarantees of restored banking and trade ties with other countries before any sanctions are lifted.[174][176] He also urged the international community to address Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal and prevent it from derailing negotiations.

On June 12, 2025, IAEA found Iran non-compliant with its nuclear obligations for the first time in 20 years.[180] The IAEA stated that Iran's repeated failure to fully address questions about undeclared nuclear material and activities amounted to non-compliance.[181] It also raised concerns over Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, which could be used for both reactor fuel and nuclear weapons.[181] Iran dismissed the resolution as politically motivated,[181] and declared plans to build a new enrichment site and install advanced centrifuges.[182]

Beginning on June 13, 2025, Israel struck multiple targets across Iran[183] with the stated goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.[184] The attacks damaged key nuclear facilities and killed several of Iran's top military leaders.[185][186][187] Among those injured was Khamenei's political advisor Ali Shamkhani, who oversaw negotiations between the United States and Iran.

On June 21, following orders from Trump, the U.S. bombed the Fordow uranium enrichment facility, the Natanz nuclear facility, and the Isfahan nuclear technology center in Iran.[196] On June 24, Trump declared a ceasefire.[

Afterwards, U.S. envoy Witkoff stated that the U.S. and Iran were engaging in both direct and mediated discussions aimed at returning to negotiations for a comprehensive peace agreement.[200] He also emphasized that the American position requires Iran to halt all uranium enrichment—a stance the White House had not consistently maintained during earlier rounds of negotiations.

Iranian government hardliners criticized the negotiations, while the government offered to dilute the remaining 60% enriched uranium in exchange for all sanctions being lifted.[

On March 2, US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff revealed that Iran began recent nuclear talks by insisting on its "inalienable right" to enrich uranium, rejecting a US proposal for zero enrichment, and even boasting that its 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium could produce 11 nuclear bombs.[236][237] Some experts suggested that the US negotiators misunderstood the Iranian proposal, including Iran's offer to suspend uranium enrichment for several years and why Iran did not trust the US offer of nuclear fuel fuel supplies.[238]

On Saturday, February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched a series of strikes against Iran, targeting key officials, military commanders, and facilities. Iran responded by launching strikes against Israel and American military bases in the Middle East, as well as civilian targets.[252][253] Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a number of Iranian officials, including the Minister of Defense Aziz Nasirzadeh, and the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Mohammad Pakpour, were killed in the strikes.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel walked into the Oval Office on the morning of Feb. 11, determined to keep the American president on the path to war.

For weeks, the United States and Israel had been secretly discussing a military offensive against Iran. But Trump administration officials had recently begun negotiating with the Iranians over the future of their nuclear program, and the Israeli leader wanted to make sure that the new diplomatic effort did not undermine the plans.

Over nearly three hours, the two leaders discussed the prospects of war and even possible dates for an attack, as well as the possibility — however unlikely — that President Trump might be able to reach a deal with Iran.

Days later, the U.S. president made clear publicly that he was skeptical of the diplomatic route, dismissing the history of negotiating with Iran as merely years of “talking and talking and talking.”

Asked by reporters if he wanted regime change in Iran, Mr. Trump said it “seems like that would be the best thing that could happen.”

Two weeks later, the president took the United States to war. He authorized a vast military bombardment in conjunction with Israel that swiftly killed the country’s supreme leader, pummeled Iranian civilian buildings and military nuclear sites, thrust the country into chaos and triggered violence across the region, leading to the deaths so far of six U.S. troops and scores of Iranian civilians. Mr. Trump has said more American casualties are likely as the United States digs in for an assault that could last weeks.

The U.S. decision to strike Iran was a victory for Mr. Netanyahu, who had been pushing Mr. Trump for months on the need to hit what he argued was a weakened regime. During a meeting at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in December, Mr. Netanyahu had asked for the president’s approval for Israel to hit Iran’s missile sites in the coming months.

Two months later, he got something even better: a full partner in a war to topple the Iranian leadership.

Israel was also not ready for the military campaign that Mr. Netanyahu had discussed with Mr. Trump during the Mar-a-Lago meeting in December. It needed more time to bolster its supply of missile interceptors and to deploy air defense batteries across Israel.

On Jan. 14, Mr. Netanyahu called Mr. Trump and asked him to delay any military strike until later in the month, when Israel’s defense preparations were complete. Mr. Trump agreed to wait.

The two leaders would speak several times in the weeks that followed. Mr. Netanyahu also conferred with Mr. Vance, Mr. Rubio and Steve Witkoff, the lead White House negotiator with Iran. Top Israeli military and intelligence officials flew to Washington, and Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, communicated regularly with Adm. Brad Cooper of U.S. Central Command.

There were few voices lobbying against military action. One exception was Tucker Carlson, the right-wing podcaster and close ally of the president, who has met with him in the Oval Office three times in the past month to argue against an attack.

He outlined the risks to U.S. military personnel, energy prices and Arab partners in the region if the United States went to war with Iran. He told the president that he should not be boxed in by Israel, arguing that its desire to attack Iran was the only reason the United States was even considering a strike. He encouraged Mr. Trump to restrain Mr. Netanyahu.

The president said he understood the risks of an attack, but he conveyed to Mr. Carlson that he had no choice but to join a strike that Israel would launch.

In the briefing, Mr. Rubio argued that, no matter if Israel or the United States struck first, Iran would respond with a powerful barrage of weapons against U.S. bases and embassies. It was logical then, Mr. Rubio said, that the United States should act in concert with Israel, since America would be dragged in anyway. And Israel, Mr. Rubio said, was determined to act.

This logic sat poorly with some Democrats, who thought the Trump administration was letting Mr. Netanyahu dictate American policy — and was making a circular argument that the United States had to attack because its military buildup could prompt Iran to strike.

The Iranians presented the Americans with a seven-page plan with proposed levels of future nuclear enrichment, numbers that alarmed Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner.

The Americans still wanted the Iranians to commit to zero enrichment, and proposed giving them free nuclear fuel for a civil nuclear program, but the Iranians refused, a U.S. official said. After the talks ended, Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner told Mr. Trump they did not think a deal could be reached.

House Speaker Mike Johnson clarifying that the US involvement in the Iran war is to support Israel:

Mike Johnson: “This was a defensive measure…If Israel fired upon Iran and took action against Iran to take out the missiles, then [Iran] would have immediately retaliated against U.S. personnel and assets."

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stating that Israel’s choice to launch strikes on Iran effectively dragged the US into following suit:

we knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.

The five soldiers were caught on video assaulting a Palestinian prisoner at Sde Teiman on July 5, 2024. Although they used riot shields in a bid to conceal the nearly 15-minute attack, medical reports cited in the case show the victim suffered serious rectal injuries requiring surgery, a ruptured bowel, punctured lung, and fractured ribs. An Israeli medical staffer said that the victim arrived at the hospital in critical condition.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who is wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza – welcomed the dismissal of the indictments, which he said had “damaged Israel’s reputation in the world in an unprecedented manner.”

Human rights groups and others condemned the decision to kill the case, with the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) posting on social media that “Israel’s military attorney general granted his soldiers a rape license—as long as the victim was Palestinian.”

Contrasting the failure to hold the reservists accountable with the draconian prison sentences given to Palestinians who resist Israel’s illegal occupation, US Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said on Bluesky: “Just so that we are clear, Israel drops criminal charges on five Israeli soldiers who were caught on camera sexually assaulting a Palestinian detainee. But Israel will keep kids in prison for decades because they were throwing rocks? Make it make sense.”

Israeli-American academic Shaiel Ben-Ephraim also noted the strength of the case, including the video footage of the assault. “They had witness testimony,” he added. “It was a slam-dunk case. Guards I talked to in Sde Teiman said this case was just the tip of the iceberg. And now they are dropping the charges. Of course.”

Last year, Israel blocked a request from United Nations sex crimes experts to probe alleged sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas fighters during the October 7, 2023 attack, reportedly to avoid attendant scrutiny of rapes and other abuses allegedly committed by Israeli forces against imprisoned Palestinians.

The IDF also reportedly struck two Islamic Health Authority centers in southern Lebanon on March 13.[71] The Islamic Health Authority is a Hezbollah-controlled organization that provides medical services to most of Lebanon’s Shia population.

International scrutiny of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs intensified in 2018 after the United States withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal—known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—and again in late 2024, following direct military strikes between Iran and Israel, as well as the reelection of Donald Trump. In Trump’s second term, Washington resumed talks with Tehran for the first time since pulling out of the JCPOA. However, in June 2025, after the UN nuclear watchdog declared Iran in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation agreements, the United States bombed Iran’s major nuclear facilities. Despite ongoing negotiations in early 2026, the United States and Israel launched a large-scale offensive against Iran in February with a stated aim of destroying its nuclear and missile capabilities. Although there has reportedly been some damage to one Iranian nuclear site, there is no confirmed evidence of major damage to the country’s overall nuclear facilities. Joint U.S.-Israeli strikes also killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran has retaliated by targeting Israel and U.S. military sites across the region, as well as several other Gulf countries, adding to concerns about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Does Iran have a nuclear weapon? Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, but it has a long history of engaging in secret nuclear weapons research in violation of its international commitments. Western analysts say the country has the knowledge and infrastructure to produce a nuclear weapon in fairly short order should its leaders decide to do so. The United States, Israel, and other Middle Eastern partners regard Iran as a primary threat to their interests in the region, and view its potential acquisition of nuclear weapons as a game-changing scenario to be steadfastly prevented—by force if necessary.

Revelations in the early 2000s about the country’s secret nuclear sites and research raised alarms in world capitals about Iran’s clandestine pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Iran’s nuclear program has since been the subject of intense international debate and diplomacy, which culminated in the 2015 JCPOA. The United States unilaterally withdrew from that agreement in 2018. Since then, international monitors say that Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear activities, again heightening concerns about its “breaking out” to develop a nuclear weapon.

At least 1,245 civilians have been killed, including 194 children, by the US-Israeli war on Iran, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists in Iran group.

In Lebanon, at least 486 people have been killed by Israeli bombing, while 11 have been killed in Israel. Seven US troops have been confirmed dead and 140 injured, eight severely.

The Lebanese Red Cross condemned an Israeli strike on one of its ambulances in the Tyre district of south Lebanon on Monday night, which injured two emergency workers.

U.S. military investigators think American forces likely were responsible for a strike that killed dozens of children at a girls elementary school in Iran, a U.S. official said. The investigation hasn’t reached a final conclusion, the official said.

the biggest takeaway was Trump’s willingness to add sanctions to those imposed under the Biden administration.

“This is the first set of sanctions from President Trump after he returned to the White House,” said Weafer. “And the fear now is that now that he’s broken, kind of like the seal, as it were, that if he is dissatisfied with any progress with Russia going forward, then he may come with more and more damaging sanctions.”

“So many of these measures have been implemented too slowly and ... a little bit at a time so that Russia has had time to adapt and to prepare and to prevent and to react,” Perrotta Berlin said.