US Attacks Iran 2026

[Judas Maccabeus]

Humans can live without things like electricity. At some point, this regime needs to be stopped; it would be a disaster if they had been allowed to get nuclear weapons. We can see that they would indiscriminately be firing them at civilian targets. It is worth nothing that IRGC has gone almost entirely after civilian targets, yet I haven't seen you decrying their "war crimes" or "violations of international law".

Those crimes are not being done in our name by our government. This is a government that is, in theory, "by the people."

[Judas Maccabeus]

There is also the sticky issue of Universal Jurisdiction. Especially if one travels when out of office.

Such a thing doesn't exist. The idea that there is some global one world government is a conspiracy theory, not a real thing.

It very much does. The US does not recognize it, but it exists nonetheless. Many, if not most nations accept ICC jurisdiction. Notable exceptions are the US, Russia, and China.

Any country that is able to lay hands on a war criminal, who commits a crime against humanity, can apprehend and tried in any jurisdiction that wishes to try him. If you have committed such a crime, it severely limits your ability to travel.

Ask Omar Bashear, former leader of Sudan. He was warned that if he set foot anywhere in Europe, he would be seised.

[Robert]

Iran is using "the sword" to defend its country, unlike the USA, which is attacking. Killing people is never justified in my eyes, but I can see that applying a standard of a just war supports defense more than attacks. Iran's attacks are not better than the USA's, though.

It’s hard to reconcile a pro-life ethic with dismissing war crimes or excusing the targeting of civilians. If all human life has value, shouldn’t that apply in war as well?

Yes, the US is living by the sword also. If there was a more powerful country, I suspect they would be trying to militarily take over the US. The US is the largest military, so hard to overpower it.

Iran has been attacking the US since 1942. Muslims have been attacking the US since 1790. I would venture to say that much of what the US is doing is retaliatory. This does not mean I like it. I do not. Just stating the historical facts of the long standing issues the US has with some Muslim governments. The US is not attacking all Muslims, just the ones who have been poking the bear since 1942.

[JohnH]

It very much does. The US does not recognize it, but it exists nonetheless. Many, if not most nations accept ICC jurisdiction. Notable exceptions are the US, Russia, and China.

That is not "universal jurisdiction" then.

What I find even more puzzling is the idea that a one-world government is a good thing. It isn't.

[Soloist]

Well at least the US is bombing universities now rather then children's schools.

[JohnH]

Well at least the US is bombing universities now rather then children's schools.

And by "universities" you mean "nuclear weapon research facilities", right?

[Szdfan]

Iran is using "the sword" to defend its country, unlike the USA, which is attacking. Killing people is never justified in my eyes, but I can see that applying a standard of a just war supports defense more than attacks. Iran's attacks are not better than the USA's, though.

It’s hard to reconcile a pro-life ethic with dismissing war crimes or excusing the targeting of civilians. If all human life has value, shouldn’t that apply in war as well?

Yes, the US is living by the sword also. If there was a more powerful country, I suspect they would be trying to militarily take over the US. The US is the largest military, so hard to overpower it.

Iran has been attacking the US since 1942. Muslims have been attacking the US since 1790. I would venture to say that much of what the US is doing is retaliatory. This does not mean I like it. I do not. Just stating the historical facts of the long standing issues the US has with some Muslim governments. The US is not attacking all Muslims, just the ones who have been poking the bear since 1942.

That’s a one-sided version of the history. It leaves out the role of US involvement in the Middle East and the context for why these conflicts exist.

What specific act of violence is current bombing against Iran actually retaliating to?

[JohnH]

That’s a one-sided version of the history. It leaves out the role of US involvement in the Middle East and the context for why these conflicts exist.

What specific act of violence is current bombing against Iran actually retaliating to?

October 7 would be a place to start, but the Iranian regime has been engaging in warfare against the U.S. ever since the revolution in 1979.

At a certain point, when people say "Death to America" over and over... believe them.

Presently, Iran has decided to bomb civilian targets like hotel buildings in a dozen countries. It should be obvious this kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated, unless you think a world where countries like Russia and Iran just lob missiles and drones at civilians is okay. It isn't, and it's disturbing to see the kind of justifications that show up on MennoNet for this kind of violence. Being anti-American and anti-Israel is not nonresistance and is not nonviolent.

[JimFoxvog]

I would venture to say that much of what the US is doing is retaliatory.

This is the logic of both sides. Almost everything done can be seen as retaliatory for some previous act of the other side.

[barnhart]

I would venture to say that much of what the US is doing is retaliatory.

This is the logic of both sides. Almost everything done can be seen as retaliatory for some previous act of the other side.

As I recall Al Qaeda considered the 911 attacks retaliatory for the US intervention in the Arabic speaking world.