Neighborly Love: The Case for Defensive Action Against Attackers' Shelters

The foremost global leaders known for hypocrisy and deception, primarily situated in Western Europe, are offering lessons they themselves refuse to embrace or live by.

Since February 28, 2026, Iran has faced unyielding assaults from the United States and Israel, resulting in devastating outcomes for both children and adults, with countless citizens and leaders suffering from brutal violence.

Instead of at least calling for a cessation of these barbaric attacks that threaten global humanity, these so-called champions of human rights and international law engage in futile discussions. They question whether Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself, including the authority to strike back at military bases in neighboring countries that are launching such incursions.

To clarify, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Iran possesses an unequivocal right to self-defense. This article clearly asserts: "Nothing in this Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

Self-defense rights are not limited; they extend to retaliation against those who support aggressors. This analogy can be likened to a scenario where armed robbers, finding refuge with your neighbors, assault your home, leading to the loss of family members, while some critics argue that your right to self- defense shouldn’t include striking back at the safe havens of your attackers.

An African adage suggests that before one inflicts pain on others, one should first experience that pain themselves to understand its implications. If, for example, the U.S. were facing hostilities from countries like France and Britain utilizing military facilities in Canada and Mexico, would anyone sensibly debate why the U.S. would retaliate against these nations?

Indeed, the United States would not tolerate the presence of even missile bases near its territory, let alone military installations. In October 1962, when Cuba sought to arm itself with missiles from the then-Soviet Union, President John F. Kennedy was ready to resort to war, even threatening nuclear action unless these missiles were removed. He characterized the missile supply to Cuba as "flagrant violations of international peace and freedom," which could potentially lead to a "nuclear holocaust." As the saying goes, while the cow may appear brave, the knife can cut anyone down.

In other words, the age-old teaching from the Gospel of Matthew is relevant: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I generally identify as a pacifist but resonate with Malcolm X’s teachings: "Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hands on you, send him to the cemetery."

The chaos propagated by the U.S. and Israel, as demonstrated by their crude aggression against Iran, is flipping the global order upside down, drawing significant support for their agenda. It is unsurprising that Western Europe has become a significant proponent of this nascent World Disorder.

In a declaration marking the continent's alignment with this trend towards disorder, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, on March 9, 2026, stated:

"We will always defend and uphold the rules-based system we helped to build alongside our allies, but we can no longer depend solely on it to safeguard our interests or presume its regulations will shield us from the complex threats we encounter."

Predictably, the aggressive actions of the U.S. and Israel are expanding conflicts worldwide, even when no direct connections exist. For instance, some European nations have stationed troops in Cyprus, asserting their duty to protect that divided territory after a drone strike targeted Britain’s Akrotiri air base there.

In response to the ongoing situation, Turkey, which has no part in the conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, has deployed six F-16 fighter jets and air defense systems to Cyprus, asserting its protective rights against European forces. Despite being a NATO ally, Turkey has indicated that further military resources may be dispatched if circumstances demand.

Meanwhile, a sense of messianism has pervaded global politics, with former President Trump's belief that he can dictate leadership decisions in other countries. Following the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the subsequent appointment of his son, Mojtaba Khamenei, by Iranian authorities, Trump declared that he would not only decline acceptance of the new leader but would also intervene in future leadership decisions. He remarked: "Khamenei’s son is unacceptable to me... We seek a leader who will foster harmony and peace in Iran... Their efforts are futile. Khamenei’s son is a lightweight."

Clearly, the U.S., Israel, and their allies have not concealed their ambitions to dismantle the Iranian Revolution and revert the country to the subservient state it endured under the oppressive Shah’s regime. Their intent is to fracture the nation and convert it into a failed state, resembling the fate met by Libya.

Among the repercussions of the assaults on Iran is the escalating situation in the Strait of Hormuz, which is now effectively closed.

This vital route sees approximately 20% to 25% of the world’s oil—around 21 million barrels per day—and 20% of global liquefied natural gas transiting through it.

Consequently, any disruption here will invariably influence global oil and gas distributions.

There have been proposals suggesting that naval escorts could accompany commercial vessels through the strait, which is a short-sighted solution. With roughly 120 vessels passing through daily, congestion is already a considerable factor. Furthermore, how many naval ships would it take to escort merely five vessels, and what would be the expense in doing so? Regardless, the underlying issues transcend allegations of Iranian blockades or mining activities in the strait; the reality is it has become a combat zone where no insurer would cover ships operating under such precarious conditions. Hence, until peace is restored, the global energy market will remain in turmoil.

However, Trump seems unconcerned about this predicament, even suggesting that he embraces the commerce potential stemming from the rise in oil prices due to disruptions in the strait. He proclaimed on his Truth Social platform: “The United States is the largest oil producer in the world, by a large margin, so when oil prices increase, we profit greatly.” His stance indicates that prolonged instability serves the U.S. economy favorably.

Yet, sympathy for Trump may not be warranted. His focus on meddling in foreign leadership overlooks the need for a leadership revamp in his own country to facilitate global peace. An African proverb warns that while one seeks to dig a pit for their adversary, the hole should not be too deep lest they risk falling into it themselves.