On the 28th of February, a missile made by the United States struck a girls' school in Iran’s Minab province, killing 165 and injuring more than 90 others in the yet highest-casualty attack in the United States’ and Israel’s new war of aggression on Iran. The damage, per an investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, was caused by precision guided munitions. Wes Bryant, a US-based military analyst and munitions expert, drives the point home in the same report: the attacks were deliberately targeted using advanced munitions in a synchronous strike on the school and nearby buildings. When asked on Piers Morgan Uncensored, multi-time workplace sexual assaulter and chairman of the Conservative Political Action Committee (better known as CPAC) Matt Schlapp said that the schoolgirls were better off dead than alive in a burqa. Considering that the American and Israeli governments haven’t even tried to deny or offer justification for the attack or indeed the entirety of what is now becoming a fully-fleshed war in the Middle East, much less a timeline, even moreso that seemingly the worst is yet to come, it’s critical to take a step back and examine a couple of questions concerning what is even happening, why, and where to go from here. The unfortunate fact of this new war in the Middle East is that it’s unlikely to end anytime soon, and the human and economic costs are going to continue to rise until this ends.

Where is the Law? 

Domestic

Former White House ethics lawyer Richard Painter told USA Today that the United States is today hurtling down a path of “might-makes-right” with regard to its war powers. While ironic, as Painter himself worked for the George W. Bush administration, he’s right; this is a situation that is more of a violation of domestic law than Iraq. The government has not even bothered with domestic law; Secretary of War Pete Hegseth received attention in a recent news briefing for his statement the US would have “No rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars… we’re not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do.” Indeed, the administration has been far from clear about its goals in Iran or the end point of such a war. Seemingly, the only thing Hegseth, the military’s figurehead, has been clear about is that the Department of War is determined not to follow the law. Indeed, it seems the White House did not even brief most of Congress before launching strikes. Considering that Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that “Congress shall… have the power to declare war,” one must ask…

Wait, where is Congress?

It’s bleak. While some lawmakers have objected to the war in Iran, attempts to limit Trump’s aggression have failed totally. Despite Congress’ exclusive authority to declare war and the War Powers Act providing the President with requirements and deadlines for attempting to engage in unilateral war, Congress has totally failed to meaningfully impede the administration. Last week, a resolution that would invoke the War Powers Act to prevent further military action failed to pass the Senate by a margin of 6 votes. This is something to watch as in the coming weeks as the administration weighs a supplemental funding request for the Department of War. Congress’ power of the purse may be the last instrument in the way of the administration, but if Democrats continue to approve of the Trump administration’s offensive there remains nothing other than the Iranians to stop the US military. Even then, their opposition (if opposition is even present) has been mostly focused not on a principled opposition to the illegal and devastating military campaign but rather that the administration didn’t fulfill their legal responsibility. Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s main critique of the Trump administration’s unilateral war on Iran seems to be that the administration didn't notify Congress beforehand.

International 

International institutions and laws also have a role to play in ensuring the United States doesn’t step too far out of line. There’s just one problem: they have totally abdicated their responsibility to do so. The UN Charter states that “aggression” from one member state against another without authorisation by the Security Council or absent self-defense amounts to a breach of international law. Theoretically there’s a way to thread the needle’s eye here in the relatively ungrounded in international law theory of pre-emptive self-defense, which has seen some success in the far-flung past. Unfortunately for this loophole, the White House has already precluded the application of this theory in Karoline Leavitt’s statement that the United States "went to war based on [President Trump’s] feeling." Thus, the war is very clearly a flagrant violation of international law and a war crime. The primary court concerned with prosecuting war crimes, the International Criminal Court (ICC), faces some barriers to carrying out justice, though. First of all, neither the United States nor Israel are member states to the Court; it has no jurisdiction. Theoretically the ICC could take matters into its own hands if the UN Security Council referred the matter to them, but the US’ status as a permanent member and the veto power it holds on the Council means that it will realistically never happen. Regime change itself constitutes a violation of interstate sovereignty as enshrined by the UN. Clearly this conflict is a violation of international law, but what of the enforcers?

So where is the UN?

It’s much the same problem as Congress. The UN is totally paralysed to resist the United States and Israel. It goes even deeper than America’s permanent veto power on the Security Council, to the missing spine in the backs of prominent nations in the General Assembly. Perhaps the most prominent issue is that there’s no way to meaningfully address the America problem at the level of international bodies. The UN General Assembly has no power beyond investigation and recommendation; indeed, too much power has been entrusted to the Security Council. The US’ permanent member status and veto power on the only body of the UN with real power to address international conflict make it impossible for punishment or even a challenge to the US’ power to occur. In the bigger picture, though, the future of the UN is in jeopardy; due to America's decision simply not to pay its dues, it is on the verge of financial collapse. Indeed, America is now in a financial position to blackmail the United Nations. Through the trust and reliance the UN has placed on America, it has set up its own doom.

Our Fault

There is no fault to be placed here but on domestic and international governing bodies. Over almost two and a half centuries of American history domestic institutions have continued to expand the powers of the executive and of the military-industrial complex. From the Supreme Court’s 1863 Prize Cases decisions expanding the power of the executive to declare war basically unilaterally to Congress’ still-standing 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force, the legislative branch has functionally surrendered its role from Article I, Section 8 as the sole declarer of war to the executive, with the aid of the Supreme Court. Over years and years of sloth, the US government’s other branches have left themselves with no tools to meaningfully combat the ever-expanding power of the executive to defy them.

The international institutions hold just as much blame. Through placing themselves in a position wherein the withholding of the dues of just one country can collapse the entire international order, the international order has long existed on a glass bridge over troubled waters that is just now starting to collapse. The permanent veto power delegated to the countries that had or have the most invested in holding absolute power over other countries only further shows that this power has always existed and has only been prevented from coming about by mercy and norms which don’t matter when a state doesn’t want to follow them.

The Israel Project

“Iran is Two Weeks Away from Developing a Nuclear Weapon”

If you ask Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Iran has been weeks away from developing a nuclear weapon since 1992, conveniently just after the historic American military success of Operation Desert Storm ended. The “imminent threat” of Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been routinely used by Israeli politicians and agents attempting to justify increasing militarism across the region. It’s a narrative American politicians have been all too happy to receive; Netanyahu's 2015 Congressional address to convince Congress that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was insufficient aimed to make that exact case. To Israel, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which would have been headed off by the JCPOA, is merely a convenient excuse to continue its oft-unprompted aggression. If this new war in Iran were even really about Iran’s nuclear program, there would be no reason for Israel's strikes on civilian targets in Lebanon, which have reportedly driven more than 7,000 Lebanese from their homes, in a conflict in which Lebanon is not involved. The understanding of Iran’s nuclear weapons program as a threat is also a double standard that is not evenly applied even in the same region.

The Samson Option

Israel has possessed nuclear weapons with the abetment of the international community since about 1967. To this day it maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity with regard to its nuclear weapons program, although its existence is an open secret. In 1986, when Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu leaked evidence of Israel's nuclear weapons program to British news while living in Rome, he was drugged and kidnapped by the Mossad. He would be returned to Israel against his will and tried behind closed doors for espionage. After eighteen years behind bars, Vanunu is yet not allowed to leave Israel and is banned from media appearances, Internet access, and possessing a cell phone. To this day, these punishments for his information are still in effect. Later on, President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would both publicly state that Israel did possess nuclear weapons. 

More worrying than Israel’s mere possession of nuclear weapons, though, is its willingness to use them. It begins with the Biblical story of Samson, the final judge of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. In short, Samson was blessed with divine strength but eventually captured by the Philistines and forced to perform for them. He asked to lean against the pillars of the temple he was performing in, and pulled as hard as he could to bring the temple crashing down around him, killing him and everyone else inside. Israel’s last-resort “Samson Option” national defense strategy aims to do much the same thing. Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh wrote about this in his book The Sampson [sic] Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal & American Foreign Policy: if Israel feels it is forced into a corner in a national security sense, its official policy is to deploy its nuclear weapons. Given the chance, Israel will tear down the pillars, so to say, of the entire region. Its potential and will to skirt the Non-Proliferation Treaty, implement nuclear catastrophe, and forever ruin what may be the entire Middle East make Israel a critical threat to humanity. There is no doubt that Israel’s deployment of the Samson Option would vaporise millions of people, and doom tens of millions more to terrible deaths.

Apocalypsis Now!

So, while Israel is a consistent danger to the countries around it and maintains nuclear weapons in defiance of international law, why does America continue to support it? Unfortunately, the religious aspect of this war cannot be underestimated. Indeed, since the construction of Israel as a modern state in the 1940s, American Protestants have been its most key international supporters. The project of Zionism, the idea that Jewish people must possess a state in Palestine, has captured the minds of many in power in America. Especially among Protestant leaders, the project to create a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine is construed toward worse ends. As a matter of fact, many Christian faiths believe control by the Jewish people of a broad swath of the Middle East is a prerequisite for the events of Revelation, the Biblical book that describes the second coming of Christ via the Rapture (called “apocalypsis” by the Greeks). In English, Christian Zionists support Israel because Israel must exist to end the world. This idea has existed for some time; in 1844, Dr. George Bush (a distant relative of the future American presidents) published The Valley of Vision; or, The Dry Bones of Israel Revived, wherein he stated that the return of the Jewish people to Israel would “form a link of communication [between humanity and God that] will blaze in notoriety,” and “flash a splendid demonstration upon all kindreds and tongues of the truth.” Obscure presidential relatives aren’t the only people with these beliefs, though; it extends to some of America’s most prominent activists and leaders. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. himself said in an address to the 1968 Rabbinical Assembly of New York: “We must stand with all of our might to protect [Israel’s] right to exist, its territorial integrity.” If we pre-suppose Christian Zionism’s assumptions about Israel to be true, there is no crime that could be committed by Israel that would justify its reining-in. The second coming of Christ would excuse all immoral, destabilising, and illegal action. Protestant megachurch head Jerry Falwell said in 1981: “To stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel.” If stance against Israel is ontologically evil and invites the punishment of God, there can be no permittance of stance against Israel. Thus these religious leaders, who hold the ears of millions of people, are able to propagate unlimited support for Israel no matter its actions. Any other action invites divine punishment. For the true believers, Israel must exist to bring about the end of the world.

The Third Temple

In America, it’s worked. Zionism and Israel’s influences in American politics are enormous. In a 2018 address to Israeli media organisation Arutz Sheva, then Fox host and now Secretary of War Pete Hegseth rung religious alarm bells. He declared “1917 was a miracle, 1948 was a miracle, 1967 was a miracle, 2017… was a miracle, and there’s no reason why the miracle of the reestablishment of the Temple on the Temple Mount is not possible.” 1917 describes the United Kingdom’s declaration of support for Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. 1948 describes the ensuing war after Israel declared its statehood, a war involving much of the Middle East and causing tens of thousands of deaths, as well as hundreds of thousands of displacements. 1967 describes the Six-Day War, wherein Israeli expansion caused a similar coalition of Arab states to go to war once more. 2017 describes the declaration by the first Trump administration that then-territorially neutral Jerusalem would be recognised by the United States as the capital of Israel. The concept of the re-establishment of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is another prerequisite for the return of Christ in Revelation's theology; there’s just one problem. The land the first two Temples Mount occupied is now the home of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, also known as the Dome of the Rock. In Islam, the location is one of the faith’s holiest sites; Muslims believe that the dome is built where the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. However, the threat to the mosque is very real. While Israel has no legal sovereignty over occupied Jerusalem or the holy sites therein, earlier this week Israel totally closed access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This war in Iran gives Israel an unprecedented opportunity: it could use its tightened military grip of its occupied territory to demolish the mosque and build the Third Temple. The idea isn’t unprecedented among Israeli leaders, either; Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir has suggested it should be destroyed to build the Temple as recently as August 2025. Extremist Israeli groups have already signaled a willingness to do this, as well. Organisations like the Yeshivat Har Habayit school have trained priests, sewed religious garments, and produced architectural models for a new Temple. This was, in the school’s own words, “to prepare public opinion to accept the idea of construction atop the ruins of Al-Aqsa Mosque.” Such an action would undoubtedly expand participation among Arab states in the ongoing war, sparking further conflict, but it’s not altogether too unlikely considering the open endorsement of the current US Secretary of Defense. 

More American politicians have seemingly been captured by the Zionist project as well: it wasn’t too long ago that the Biden administration failed to meaningfully address Israel’s aggression in the region amid its already-ongoing genocide and consistent crossing of the administration’s “red lines.” It’s even worse in American politics now. The American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, contributed to the campaigns of 365 of the 435 members of the US House of Representatives. Despite lobbying exclusively for the interests of a foreign country and its military, AIPAC has not registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. Members of Congress have, over the past decade, taken hundreds of trips to Israel on AIPAC’s dime. It lobbies for unconditional military aid to Israel, domestic restrictions on boycotting Israeli goods, and the stripping of tax-exempt access to pro-peace nonprofits. It goes even deeper than the surface level, though. The ongoing Illinois 9th District Democratic Congressional primary election has gained nationwide attention for the involvement of new organisations like Chicago Progressive Partnership and Elect Chicago Women, each affiliated with AIPAC. Indeed, in some cases these organisations have violated the law in their nondisclosure of legally required information to the Federal Election Commission. Many of them were created just weeks ago, when anti-Israel candidate Kat Abughazaleh became a serious contender in the primary. Sometimes, though, Israeli influence in American politics is much more overt. In a recent interview with Fox News, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham professed his loyalty to Israel and asked Americans to prepare themselves for boots on the ground in the Middle East, saying, “I’m not with you, I’m with Israel, I will be with Israel to our dying day… I’m going back to South Carolina, I’m asking them to send their sons and daughters into the Mid East.” The “America First” senator’s proclamation of his loyalty to a foreign country would be grounds for removal from office or imprisonment in a reasonable country. Many American politicians’ loyalty to Israel, for reasons religious or electoral, has led to their bending over backwards to represent a foreign country from Washington, DC. Such loyalty threatens to expand war in the region and cause even further damage to American democracy; it is unacceptable for one country’s representatives to admit to representing another and stay in office. Israel’s influence in American politics and our politicians’ open admission of it combined with a total lack of accountability has started a new war, and Americans will pay with their money (to the tune of $60 million per day) if not their lives.

Lessons Learned

On Nuclear Weapons

One of the most clear lessons to be learned not only for Iran but for other states under threat by the US like Cuba, Panama, or Denmark is that the power of nuclear deterrence is a virtue to be pursued with little regard for the cost. Iran has long recognised the necessity of nuclear weapons to deter the nuclear states in the development of its nuclear weapons program. Agreeing to the Iran Nuclear Deal was, on its part, a mistake; international pariah states need to be able to defend themselves from Western powers that pose them credible threats. Look no farther than North Korea; America and Israel’s joint war on Iran has fully validated the Kim doctrine on nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, North Korea's withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and subsequent development of nuclear weapons, and open willingness to use them in defense, is probably the primary guarantor of its security given current circumstances. Routinely North Korea has rejected conversations and negotiations to denuclearise as part of Kim’s defense calculus. This strategy has only been further vindicated as now that this conflict has begun, we’ve seen what happens to pariah states that falter on nuclear weapons development. Senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Sydney Seiler said to The Guardian: “President Trump’s willingness to use military force and threats for negotiating leverage must make Kim nervous and less likely to hastily seek talks.” Furthermore, New York Times national security writer W.J. Hennigan put it well: despite decades of Democratic and Republican presidents’ aims to denuclearise North Korea, it’s never happened. The difference for the Trump administration is that it knows even force can’t denuclearise North Korea. In 2021, the US Defense Intelligence Agency outlined the expansive nature of North Korea’s strike capabilities, with entrenched missile silos across the country and increasing second-strike capability. As a matter of fact, in 2025 North Korea unveiled the country’s first nuclear-powered submarine with the capacity to fire ballistic missiles with thousands of kilometers of range. North Korea’s nuclear program serves as an effective hedge against Western threats, and is an effective model for other states to pursue. If other pariah states like Iran or Panama had followed this model, they would have at the least a bargaining chip and at the most a hedge against Western aggression. 

On America and Israel

In international relations, America and Israel absolutely cannot be trusted. The de facto declaration of war on the part of these states came amid talks of nuclear disarmament between Washington and Tehran. America’s willingness to interrupt talks with explosions should, to other states, completely disqualify negotiations with America. Israel itself has routinely violated its ceasefires in Gaza, thousands of times per Al Jazeera's reporting. It all goes to show that when America or Israel initiate diplomatic talks, it’s a complete sham. Negotiations, in this case, can only be allowed to serve the ends of the aggressor. If other parties refuse to participate in appeasement in this new world order, one of two things becomes true to America and Israel: it either won’t follow the agreement, or the other party becomes a valid target for attack. Much the same as states must prepare to defend themselves in the case of aggression from America or Israel, they must also understand that to those countries negotiations are a mirage; an affect put on to impart legitimacy on actions they were going to commit anyway, if there is even any intent to participate in real negotiations.

On the Paper Tiger

For a world threatened by an America with the will to shatter the international order and aggress against other states, there is actually hope. If there’s one takeaway above all others in this conflict, it’s that America’s military isn’t all it was chalked up to be. Currently, America and Israel are fighting a hopeless war against an enemy that strategically outmatches them. This conflict is doomed to become another quagmire, and this situation disproportionately benefits Iran.

Most importantly, America’s military is not capable of managing extended conflict. The key problem is America’s focus on development rather than production. In peacetime, America has no need to stockpile munitions but a huge economic dependence on the profits of the military-industrial complex. So, when there is no serious threat abroad, military contracts are given to projects like that of the F-35, a marvel in modern military aviation. Indeed, in 2025 the F-35 program breached $2 trillion in total government contracts. Modern military production in the United States has become primarily focused on contractors’ pitch decks, rather than actual warfighting capability. The constant focus on innovation has prevented the US military from developing the necessary productive capacity to seriously fight wars. This unfortunate prophecy has fulfilled itself already; after just 72 hours of strikes on Iran, the US had already depleted 10% of its Tomahawk missile supply. America’s military is not capable of fighting a modern war because it has no productive capacity, and decades of technological development meant to drive stock prices and investor hype have prevented America from developing the meaningful ability to fight modern wars.

Iran shows that states’ unique situation within and access to local geography can set them apart as well. As of 2025, the Strait of Hormuz facilitated over 20% of the world’s total petroleum use. For Iran, this is a unique advantage; the importance of Hormuz to the global trade order gives Iran unique leverage. Iran has extreme potential to decimate much of the global economy. This week, Iran started laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz, in an already-extremely tight shipping lane. It takes precious few supplies to manage that, but has the potential to decimate the entire global petroleum industry. The Trump administration, in response, announced a program to insure freighters attempting to travel through the strait. However, key shipping companies are not biting. The CEO of Maersk, the world’s largest maritime shipping company, outright refused potential US insurance to get Maersk’s ships through the strait, citing safety concerns. If a ship exploded in the strait due to direct Iranian attacks or a mine explosion, the environmental damage could be catastrophic. Per Greenpeace, the ships currently stuck in the Persian Gulf contain around 21 billion liters of oil, or almost 27 times the volume of the spillage from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Much worse than the mere spillage, though, is the inherent risk of explosions. If an attack on a passing oil tanker caught any of the oil on fire, the massive volume of the ship’s capacity would be unleashed ablaze into the Persian Gulf, making the area completely impassable for an extended period of time and becoming nearly impossible to clean. Thus, the potential damage Iran could choose to cause to the global economy and to the maritime shipping industry, which are both extremely dependent on the Strait of Hormuz, makes this war an enormous strategic mistake on the part of the United States.

Conclusion

Given all this, this war is not only a strategic catastrophe; it represents the total collapse of the world order. No one has stepped in to stop the grave breaches of the law, domestic or international, and it looks like no one will. Israel poses a permanent threat to regional stability, and is propped up by self-admitted foreign agents in the US government who abide by a religious worldview that obliges them to end the world. Negotiations by America and Israel are a mirage. So, America must lose. Ideally, badly. It is not a matter of governmental structure or ideology or religion; America represents a total breakdown of the international social contract. Iran fights for its own regime’s security, sure, but its victory would be a refutation of the violations committed by the governments of the United States and Israel. Iranian victory is a sign that there are consequences to the breakers of international law and the international community that tacitly endorses it in standing by. Iranian victory is, more than anything else, a defeat of the aggressor. For the future of the world, Iran must win.