President Donald Trump launched a sharp attack on Pope Leo XIV this week, criticizing the first American-born pontiff over his calls for peace amid the ongoing U.S. involvement in the war with Iran. Trump took to Truth Social on Sunday night with a lengthy post in which he called the Pope “WEAK on Crime” and “terrible for Foreign Policy.” He accused Pope Leo of “catering to the Radical Left” and advised him to “focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.” Trump even claimed credit for the Pope’s election, writing that “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican” because the Church supposedly chose an American to “deal with President Donald J. Trump.” He added that he doesn’t want a Pope who criticizes the President for doing what he was “elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do.”
Instead of attacking the spiritual leader of 1.4 billion Catholics, President Trump would do well to focus on the failures of his own presidency. His time in office has been marked by skyrocketing inflation that has eroded the purchasing power of American families, expensive and seemingly endless wars that drain our treasury, and rising living costs that make basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare feel out of reach for millions. Crime has increased in many communities precisely because people are struggling without the basics — stable jobs, affordable housing, and hope for the future. These are the real crises facing the United States, not the moral voice of the Pope calling for peace and reconciliation.
Pope Leo XIV is right to speak out. His appeals for peace in the Gospel tradition are not political meddling; they are the timeless mission of the Church. Trump’s broadside reveals a leader who has taken leave of his senses and intelligence, lashing out at one of the most respected moral authorities on the planet while his own policies contribute to instability at home and abroad.
The Pope Is the Better Leader — and a True American
By contrast, Pope Leo XIV stands as a figure of dignity, wisdom, and genuine leadership. As the first pope born in the United States (in Chicago, no less), he is a proud American who understands the values of justice, compassion, and human dignity that this country was founded upon. His approval and respect among Catholics and people of goodwill worldwide far exceed the polarizing ratings of any modern politician. The papal voice carries moral weight precisely because it is not beholden to electoral cycles or partisan interests.
Trump should remember that the papacy is older than any other political office in existence today. The Chair of St. Peter dates back nearly 2,000 years, long before the founding of the American republic or any contemporary nation-state. Moreover, the Pope is not merely a religious figure — he is the sovereign of Vatican City, a recognized head of state with full diplomatic relations around the world. His role gives him not only the right but the duty to address matters of war, peace, justice, and the common good.
The papal voice is more powerful and ancient than any other. It has outlasted empires, kings, and presidents. When the Pope speaks on politics in the service of peace and human life, he does so with an authority rooted in two millennia of moral teaching, not fleeting public opinion polls or campaign rhetoric.
Defending the Pope’s Right to Speak
Critics who tell the Pope to “stay out of politics” ignore history and reality. The Church has always engaged the world — from St. Augustine to modern popes who helped end the Cold War and promoted human rights. Pope Leo XIV is simply continuing that tradition. He has “no fear of the Trump administration nor of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel,” as he recently stated. That courage is exactly what the world needs: a voice that prioritizes human lives over geopolitical maneuvering or personal egos.
Americans deserve better than leaders who attack the moral conscience of the nation and the world when it challenges their decisions. Instead of feuding with the Pope, President Trump should reflect on the real challenges facing our country — economic hardship, the human cost of war, and the erosion of civil society. Pope Leo XIV offers a better model of leadership: one grounded in humility, service, and the pursuit of peace for all people.
The papacy has guided souls through crises far greater than any single administration. Its wisdom endures because it places the dignity of every human person — American or Iranian, rich or poor — at the center. In that light, the Pope is not only right; he is exercising the very leadership the moment demands.
The concept of just war has deep roots in Christian theology, particularly within Catholicism, and has influenced Protestant thought as well. It provides a moral framework for when the use of lethal force by a state can be ethically permissible. However, in contemporary political discourse, especially among some right-wing, politically inclined Catholics and Protestants, the doctrine is often misunderstood or misapplied.
Many equate any military action aimed at regime change, preemptive strikes against disliked leaders, or responses to perceived slights or delays as inherently "just." This distorts the tradition's emphasis on self-preservation and legitimate defense, turning it into a justification for offensive or ideological wars.
This blog post explores the historical and doctrinal foundations of just war theory, its strict criteria, why it is fundamentally about defense rather than aggression, and why some conservative Christians misinterpret it to support broader interventions.
Historical Development of Just War Theory
Just war theory originated in Christian thought to reconcile the Gospel's call to peace with the reality of evil and the need to protect the innocent. St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) laid early foundations, arguing that war could be waged out of love to restrain evil and restore peace, not for conquest or hatred. He drew from Cicero and Scripture, emphasizing that wars must correct grave wrongs.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) systematized it in his Summa Theologiae (II-II, q. 40). He outlined three key requirements for a war to be just (jus ad bellum, or right to war):
1. Legitimate authority — Declared by a sovereign, not private individuals.
2. Just cause — Typically defense against aggression or rectification of serious injustice.
3. Right intention — Aimed at peace and good, not vengeance, domination, or cruelty.
Later developments added criteria for conducting war justly (jus in bello), such as proportionality and discrimination (protecting non-combatants).
The modern Catholic articulation appears in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), paragraphs 2307–2317. It stresses that "all citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war" (CCC 2308). War is a last resort for legitimate defense.
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force (CCC 2309) are:
- The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.
- All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
- There must be serious prospects of success.
- The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. Modern weapons' destructive power weighs heavily here.
These are cumulative; all must be met simultaneously. The doctrine prioritizes peace and views war as a tragic necessity for self-defense, not a tool for nation-building, ideological purification, or punishing "bad" regimes.
Protestant traditions largely adopt similar principles, modified from Catholic sources. Thinkers like Martin Luther and John Calvin acknowledged the magistrate's role in wielding the sword for justice (Romans 13), while emphasizing restraint. Many Protestant denominations affirm just war thinking, though some lean toward pacifism or "just peacemaking."
Just War as Self-Preservation, Not Aggression
At its core, just war is defensive. It permits force only when a nation or community faces imminent, grave harm that cannot be averted otherwise. It is not about:
- Regime change for ideological reasons (e.g., spreading democracy or removing dictators disliked for human rights abuses alone).
- Preemptive attacks based on potential future threats without "lasting, grave, and certain" aggression.
- Punishing delays in responses, diplomatic slights, or harboring suspicions.
- Economic interests, resource control, or geopolitical dominance disguised as justice.
The aggressor must have already inflicted or imminently threatened severe, irreversible harm. Examples include repelling an invasion or stopping genocide in progress when diplomacy fails. Preventive wars or interventions to "fix" another country's government fail the "last resort" and "grave and certain" tests, as they often rely on speculation rather than actual aggression.
Modern weapons amplify the final condition: proportionality weighs heavily against escalation, as nuclear, chemical, or widespread conventional warfare can create greater evils (e.g., regional instability, mass displacement, or terrorism surges).
Misunderstandings Among Some Right-Wing Catholics and Protestants
Some politically conservative Christians, influenced by nationalism, anti-communism, or hawkish foreign policy, stretch just war criteria to endorse offensive actions. They may view military power as a moral imperative to confront "evil" regimes globally, conflating prudential judgments with absolute moral imperatives.
This manifests in support for interventions like the 2003 Iraq War, where claims of weapons of mass destruction (later disproven), links to terrorism, or Saddam Hussein's tyranny were invoked as "just cause." Critics, including Pope John Paul II, argued it failed just war thresholds: no imminent grave threat from Iraq post-1991, viable alternatives (inspections), uncertain success, and foreseeable graver evils (sectarian violence, ISIS rise, Christian exodus from the Middle East).
Similar patterns appear in debates over Iran, where regime hostility, proxy actions, or nuclear ambitions prompt calls for strikes framed as "defensive." Yet without direct, lasting aggression against the U.S. or allies, these risk failing the criteria.
Why this misunderstanding?
1. Politicization: In polarized environments, just war becomes a rhetorical tool. Conservative media or figures may label opponents "pacifists" or "weak," pressuring alignment with hawkish policies. This inverts the doctrine's peace priority.
2. Confusion of prudential and moral judgments: The CCC notes evaluating conditions belongs to leaders' prudential judgment for the common good. Some treat disagreement as moral failure rather than legitimate debate.
3. Nationalism over universalism: Viewing one's nation as uniquely moral leads to seeing any threat (real or perceived) as justifying force, ignoring global proportionality.
4. Selective application: Criteria are applied rigorously to enemies but loosely to allies or one's own side.
Examples include regret over Iraq support among some Catholics, who later recognized it produced worse evils, or ongoing debates where strikes are justified preemptively without meeting "certain" harm.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Authentic Just War Teaching
Just war theory is not a blank check for military action but a stringent moral guardrail emphasizing peace, defense, and restraint. It protects against vengeance, imperialism, or ideological crusades. Christians—Catholic and Protestant—must apply it rigorously, prioritizing non-violence and diplomacy.
Misapplying it to support regime-change wars or attacks over disliked leaders betrays its spirit. True adherence requires humility, recognizing war's tragedy and the heavy burden on leaders.
By returning to sources like Aquinas, the Catechism, and Augustine, believers can resist distortions and witness Christ's peace in a conflicted world.
Sources:
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2307–2317 (Vatican.va).
- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 40.
- Catholic Answers: "What Is a 'Just War'?" (catholic.com).
- Word on Fire: "That Evil Will Not Prevail: A Primer on Catholic Just War Doctrine."
- America Magazine articles on just war applications (e.g., Iraq and recent conflicts).
- Various analyses from Catholic Standard, National Catholic Register, and others critiquing misapplications in modern interventions.
Defending Pope Leo XIV: A Call for Peace in a Divided World
In recent weeks, Pope Leo XIV has faced a barrage of criticism from MAGA supporters and conservative voices, particularly those in evangelical circles, over his outspoken stance on peace. Detractors accuse him of meddling in politics, while others point to the Church's historical involvement in "holy wars" as evidence of hypocrisy. As a Catholic thinker and observer of faith in the public square, I feel compelled to address these attacks head-on. Pope Leo XIV is not only within his rights to speak on these matters but is fulfilling his sacred duty as a shepherd of the faithful. Let's unpack the criticisms and reaffirm why his message of peace aligns perfectly with the Gospel and Catholic tradition.
The Pope as Head of State: A Right to Speak on Global Affairs
First and foremost, let's dispel the notion that the Pope is overstepping by "getting involved in politics." Pope Leo XIV is not just the spiritual leader of over a billion Catholics worldwide; he is also the sovereign head of Vatican City State, a recognized independent nation with full diplomatic status. This dual role grants him every right to engage in international discourse, much like any other world leader. The Vatican maintains embassies (nunciatures) in countries around the globe and participates in organizations like the United Nations. When the Pope calls for peace, he's exercising his authority as a head of state to advocate for the common good on the world stage.
But here's the key distinction: this isn't about partisan politics. Pope Leo XIV isn't endorsing candidates, dictating economic policies, or telling nations how to govern their internal affairs. His message is fundamentally about peace—an end to conflict, dialogue over destruction, and human dignity over division. In a world ravaged by wars, from ongoing conflicts in the Middle East to tensions in Eastern Europe, his pleas for negotiation and ceasefires echo the universal moral imperative to value life. Critics who label this as "political interference" are missing the point: peace transcends politics. It's a human and spiritual necessity, rooted in the Gospel's call to love one's neighbor (Matthew 22:39).
The Gospel's Mandate: Peace, Not Power
At the heart of Pope Leo XIV's stance is the teachings of Jesus Christ himself. The Prince of Peace didn't come to wield a sword but to bring reconciliation. "Blessed are the peacemakers," Jesus proclaimed in the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:9), and he commanded his followers to "turn the other cheek" (Matthew 5:39), forgive endlessly (Matthew 18:22), and love even their enemies (Matthew 5:44). The Pope's advocacy for de-escalation and dialogue isn't a modern invention; it's a direct application of these scriptural imperatives.
Yet, many of his critics—often self-identified conservatives and evangelicals who proudly claim to "love Jesus and Scripture"—seem to conveniently ignore these commands. They rally around a version of faith that prioritizes national strength, military might, and "winning" at all costs. This isn't the Jesus of the Bible, who washed feet, healed the outcast, and prayed for his persecutors from the cross. Instead, it's a caricature: a warrior Jesus molded in the image of cultural battles and political agendas. True discipleship demands we confront our own hypocrisies. If we truly follow Christ, we must prioritize peace and forgiveness over vengeance and domination.
Addressing the "Holy Wars" Critique: Understanding Just War Theory
Another common attack invokes the Church's historical "holy wars," like the Crusades, as proof that Catholicism has no moral high ground on peace. This is a misunderstanding—or perhaps a deliberate misrepresentation—of Church teaching. Yes, the Catholic Church has been involved in conflicts throughout history, but these were not blanket endorsements of war as a holy endeavor. Instead, they fall under the framework of just war theory, a doctrine developed by theologians like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas to discern when force might be morally permissible.
Just war theory outlines strict criteria for when war can be considered justifiable:
1. Just Cause: War must be waged in self-defense against an unjust aggressor, to protect innocent lives, or to restore a grave injustice. It's not about conquest or ideology.
2. Right Intention: The goal must be peace and justice, not revenge, domination, or economic gain.
3. Last Resort: All non-violent options, like diplomacy and sanctions, must be exhausted first.
4. Proportionality: The anticipated benefits must outweigh the harms, and force used must be proportionate to the threat.
5. Legitimate Authority: War must be declared by a rightful authority, not vigilantes or rogue actors.
6. Probability of Success: There must be a reasonable chance of achieving the just aims.
7. Discrimination: Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians, minimizing harm to innocents.
The Crusades and other historical conflicts were often framed as defensive responses to threats against Christian communities or holy sites, though historians debate how well they adhered to these principles in practice. Importantly, the Church has evolved in its understanding, with modern popes like St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI emphasizing that war is always a failure of humanity and should be avoided whenever possible.
Contrast this with the scenarios critics defend today: attacking a nation simply because it won't agree to your terms, or pursuing regime change through military force. These do not meet just war criteria. They're acts of aggression, not defense, and they prioritize power over peace. Pope Leo XIV's call to end such wars isn't hypocrisy—it's a faithful application of Catholic doctrine, urging leaders to seek alternatives that honor human life.
Why the Pope Is Right—and Why We Need His Voice Now
In the end, Pope Leo XIV's stance is a beacon of moral clarity in a polarized world. He's reminding us that faith isn't a tool for political gain but a call to transcend it. To his MAGA and conservative critics: if you truly love Jesus and Scripture, reflect on His words about peace and love. Turn away from the caricature of a triumphant, sword-wielding Savior and embrace the humble, forgiving Christ who conquered through the cross, not conquest.
As Catholics and people of goodwill, we should rally behind the Pope's message. Peace isn't weakness; it's the ultimate strength. It is sad to see even some Catholic attacking the pope in favor of Trump and Israel. Where is their loyalty, in Christ or US/Israeli polemics?
In a time of escalating global tensions, his voice isn't just welcome—it's essential. Let's pray for dialogue, forgiveness, and an end to the cycles of violence that plague our world.
The Fall of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: Why His Death Was Inevitable and Just
In our shared human experience, death is a somber event. We are taught, across faiths and philosophies, not to rejoice in the passing of another soul. Life is sacred, and even the most flawed individuals deserve a measure of compassion in their final moments. Yet, there are rare exceptions—figures whose existence perpetuated such profound evil that their removal from the world feels like a divine correction. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader from 1989 until his death on February 28, 2026, in joint U.S.-Israeli airstrikes, was one such exception. He embodied pure evil, a modern antichrist whose tyrannical rule oppressed millions, mocked God, and sowed chaos globally. The world is undeniably better without him, and based on his heretical beliefs, unrepented mortal sins, and defiance of divine truth, he now faces eternal judgment in hell.
A Brief Biography of a Ruthless Cleric
Ali Hosseini Khamenei was born on April 19, 1939, in Mashhad, Iran, into a modest religious family as the son of an Islamic scholar. Raised in poverty, he pursued clerical studies in Qom under Ruhollah Khomeini, the architect of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. Khamenei actively opposed the Shah's regime, enduring imprisonment for his protests. After the revolution, he rose quickly: serving as deputy defense minister, briefly commanding the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and becoming president from 1981 to 1989. In 1989, following Khomeini's death, Khamenei was elevated to Supreme Leader despite lacking traditional qualifications, consolidating absolute power over Iran's military, judiciary, and foreign policy. He ruled until his demise at age 86, killed amid escalating conflicts.
The Evils He Inflicted: Oppression and Tyranny
Khamenei's reign was marked by unrelenting oppression of his people. Under his watch, Iran became a theocratic dictatorship where dissent was crushed with brutality. Human rights abuses flourished: arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances, and mass executions. In the 2022 "Woman, Life, Freedom" protests sparked by Mahsa Amini's death in custody for improper hijab, security forces killed hundreds, including children, and perpetrated sexual violence as crimes against humanity. By 2025-2026, amid economic protests, over 3,000 demonstrators were unlawfully slain, with forces targeting eyes and heads in systematic attacks.
He exported terror, funding proxies like Hezbollah and militias in Iraq and Syria, fueling regional conflicts and human rights violations abroad. Domestically, Khamenei enforced strict Islamic norms, mandating hijab and chastity laws that subjugated women, leading to a "reign of terror" with acid attack threats and gender persecution. His cult of personality persecuted critics, jailing journalists for "insulting" him and fostering a climate of fear. Economic mismanagement under sanctions left Iranians in poverty, while he prioritized repression over reform.
Contradictions in Islam: A Faith Twisted by Hypocrisy
Critics have long highlighted contradictions in Islam that Khamenei's rule exemplified and exacerbated. The Quran claims no compulsion in religion (2:256), yet commands slaying polytheists (9:5), mirroring Khamenei's forced conversions and killings of dissenters. Creation narratives conflict: six days in some verses, eight in others, undermining claims of divine perfection. Ethical inconsistencies abound, like promoting peace while endorsing violence, or historical errors such as Samaritans in Moses' time (who didn't exist then). Scientific flaws, like geocentric views or flawed embryology, clash with modern knowledge. Khamenei weaponized these hypocrisies, preaching justice while oppressing, claiming divine authority while mocking God's true mercy through Christ.
An Exception to Compassion: Pure Evil Incarnate
We hesitate to celebrate death, but Khamenei was no ordinary man—he was the antichrist among us, a false prophet whose heretical Shia beliefs distorted God's word, elevating imams over scripture in idolatry. His manifest sins—mass murder, idolatry, unrepentant pride—sealed his fate. He mocked God by claiming absolute rule, defying humility and love taught in true faith. Without repentance, he burns in hell, as justice demands for such evil.
The world breathes easier: Iran's proxies weaken, oppression eases, and hope flickers for freedom. Khamenei's end wasn't vengeance but necessity, removing a cancer from humanity.
On this Second Sunday of Lent in Year A (March 1, 2026), the Catholic Church invites us into the mystery of God's call and the revelation of Christ's glory through the Transfiguration. The readings are
- First Reading: Genesis 12:1-4a – God calls Abram to leave his homeland, promising to make him a great nation and a blessing to all peoples. Abram obeys in faith, setting out without knowing his full destination.
- Responsorial Psalm: Psalm 33:4-5, 18-19, 20, 22 – A hymn of trust in the Lord's faithful word, uprightness, and loving kindness toward those who hope in Him.
- Second Reading: 2 Timothy 1:8b-10 – Paul urges Timothy not to be ashamed of the Gospel or of suffering for it, reminding us that God has saved us and called us to holiness through grace revealed in Christ Jesus.
- Gospel: Matthew 17:1-9 – Jesus is transfigured before Peter, James, and John on the mountain, His face shining like the sun, with Moses and Elijah appearing. A voice from the cloud declares, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." The disciples are awestruck, and Jesus instructs them not to tell anyone until after the resurrection.
These readings center on faith in God's call and encountering divine glory amid hardship. Abram's radical obedience mirrors the Lenten journey of leaving behind comfort zones to follow God's plan. The Transfiguration offers a glimpse of Christ's resurrection glory, strengthening the disciples (and us) for the path to Calvary. Paul's words remind us that our calling is not based on our merits but on God's grace, even when it involves suffering or uncertainty.
In this Lent, as we reflect on these Scriptures, the world faces profound turmoil. Recent events—the major attack on Iran and the reported death of its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—have escalated tensions in the Middle East, with strikes, retaliations, and widespread uncertainty. Lives have been lost, families grieve, and the threat of broader conflict looms. Such violence reminds us of humanity's fragility and the consequences of sin, division, and the rejection of peace.
Yet, the Transfiguration speaks directly to these dark moments. Just as the disciples were terrified by the divine light and the voice from heaven, we too can feel overwhelmed by worldly chaos. Jesus touches them and says, "Rise, and do not be afraid." This is our Lenten invitation: to rise from fear, listen to Christ, and trust in God's ultimate plan of salvation. Many Protestants claim that saints are "dead." We see in the Transfiguration that they are not. The appearance of Moses and Elijah shows that the saints are a live an well and part of the Catholic Church.
As Catholics, we are called to be instruments of peace. Lent urges us to deepen prayer, fasting, and almsgiving—not only for personal conversion but for the world. In light of these grave events, we must intensify our prayers for peace in the Middle East and beyond. Pray for an end to violence, for wisdom among leaders, for healing of the wounded, and for the repose of the souls of the departed. Pray especially for the people of Iran and all affected nations, that God's mercy may prevail over hatred.
May the Lord who called Abram in faith, who revealed His glory in the Transfiguration, and who calls us to holiness grant us the courage to listen to His beloved Son. In doing so, may we become bearers of His peace in a wounded world.
Let us pray: Lord, make us instruments of Your peace. Amen.
Escalation in the Middle East: US and Israel Launch Joint Attack on Iran, Supreme Leader Khamenei Killed
In a dramatic and unprecedented turn of events, the United States and Israel have carried out a major military operation against Iran, resulting in the death of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
This assault, described by US President Donald Trump as a step toward regime change, has plunged the region into further turmoil and raised fears of a broader conflict.
The Attack Unfolds
The operation began on February 28, 2026, with coordinated airstrikes targeting key sites in Iran, including Khamenei's compound in Tehran. Iranian state media confirmed Khamenei's death early the following day, announcing 40 days of national mourning and several public holidays in his honor. Sources indicate that the strikes may have killed around 40 high-ranking Iranian officials, including potentially the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. President Trump took to Truth Social to declare the success of the mission, stating that "heavy and pinpoint bombing" would continue "uninterrupted throughout the week or as long as necessary" to achieve peace in the Middle East.
Israel, a key partner in the operation, confirmed targeting several top officials, while Iranian reports suggest Khamenei's daughter, grandson, and son-in-law may also have been among the casualties. In retaliation, Iran launched missiles and drones toward Israel and US military bases in the region, with the Iranian army vowing "the most devastating offensive operation." Explosions were reported in Tehran, and satellite imagery shows extensive damage to targeted sites.
Background and Tensions Leading to the Strike
This attack comes amid longstanding tensions between Iran, the US, and Israel. Khamenei, who had led Iran since 1989 as its supreme leader, was a hardline cleric known for his opposition to the West and support for proxy groups across the Middle East. The decision to strike followed weeks of lobbying by Israel and Saudi Arabia, urging the US to take decisive action against what they described as Iran's threats to regional security.
The US has framed the operation as necessary to prevent Iran from endangering American interests, with Trump emphasizing the need to "overturn Tehran's government." Iran's constitution outlines a process for selecting a successor under Article 111, but the sudden vacuum in leadership could lead to internal power struggles and heightened instability.
International Reactions and Potential Ramifications
The international community has reacted with alarm. Iran's allies have condemned the strikes, while Western nations have expressed concerns over escalation. The risk of a wider war looms large, with potential impacts on global oil prices, refugee flows, and alliances in the region. Analysts warn that this could draw in other powers, further destabilizing the Middle East.
Crowds gathered in Tehran's Enghelab Square to mourn Khamenei and celebrate, reflecting the deep divisions and grief within Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli officials briefed on the operation have hailed it as a strategic success, though the full extent of casualties and damage remains unclear.
A Call for Reflection
As the dust settles on this seismic event, the world watches anxiously. The death of Khamenei marks the end of an era for Iran and potentially the beginning of a new chapter fraught with uncertainty. While military actions may address immediate threats, lasting peace requires dialogue, diplomacy, and mutual respect among nations.
A Prayer for Peace
Heavenly Father, in this time of conflict and sorrow, we pray for peace in the Middle East and across the world. Comfort those who mourn, heal the wounded, and guide the leaders of nations toward wisdom and reconciliation. May Your light dispel the darkness of war, and may all people come to know the harmony that comes from justice and compassion. Amen.
Sources
- CNN: Live updates on Iran's Supreme Leader killed in US-Israeli strikes
- NBC News: Live updates on Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is dead
- AP News: Iran's supreme leader killed in major attack by US and Israel
- BBC: Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead, state media says
- NPR: Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has been killed
- CBS News: Live Updates: U.S.-Israel strikes killed 40 Iranian leaders, including Khamenei
- Reuters: Live: Iran confirms supreme leader Khamenei is dead after US, Israeli attacks
- Washington Post: Live updates: Iran's supreme leader killed in U.S.-Israeli attack
- Al Jazeera: US, Israel attack Iran live: Tehran confirms Khamenei's killing
- X Post from @dt_next: Confirmation of Khamenei's death and damage [post:3]
Today Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the nation of Israel addressed a full session of Congress. His presence has been controversial and deemed as a disrespect to President Obama and his administration. Some democrats even refused to participate in today's session. Elections will be taking place in Israel, so this was another reason why some saw his address as a political stunt in order to get re-elected.
President Obama called Netanyahu's speech political theater and said he offered no alternative. Democrat Nancy Pelosi who was visibly agitated and held back applause said she nearly cried at how condescending Netanyahu came across, "I was near tears throughout the prime minister's speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States, the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation."
In the speech, Netanyahu described Congress as "the most important legislative body in the world," which may have been an obsequious attempt to garner the favor of those present. He criticized Obama's deal with Iran over nuclear energy as "big mistake." Once again, he called Iran a "threat to the world," and voiced his concerns that Israel would be attacked by a nuclear weapon.
Here is the text of the speech:
NETANYAHU: Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you...
(APPLAUSE)
... Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority -- Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet.
(APPLAUSE)
I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.
(LAUGHTER)
My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. Congress.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.
I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.
(APPLAUSE)
I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
[READ: Republicans loved every word of Bibi's address]
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.
(APPLAUSE)
Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American -- of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.
(APPLAUSE)
We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.
Now, some of that is widely known.
(APPLAUSE)
Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.
I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.
In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.
Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.
(APPLAUSE)
In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.
And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.
But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.
(APPLAUSE)
And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.
(APPLAUSE)
Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.
My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.
We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.
The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.
(APPLAUSE)
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.
For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.
But Iran's regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.
The people of Iran are very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots -- religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.
That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to "export the revolution throughout the world."
I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.
Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.
Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.
Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.
In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.
So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.
(APPLAUSE)
We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.
Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.
Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of "Death to America," that same America that it calls the "Great Satan," as loud as ever.
Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.
Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America.
Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
(APPLAUSE)
The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I'll say it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.
(APPLAUSE)
But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.
Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.
And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.
True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.
Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.
Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.
Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.
The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught -- caught twice, not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.
Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, "If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one." Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.
But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.
Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.
Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.
My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.
Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.
And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.
So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb.
So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?
Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?
Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb.
And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.
This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.
If anyone thinks -- if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.
Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
(APPLAUSE)
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...
(APPLAUSE)
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.
(APPLAUSE)
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.
(APPLAUSE)
If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.
(APPLAUSE)
If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.
(APPLAUSE)
My friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.
(APPLAUSE)
Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.
(APPLAUSE)
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.
My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.
(APPLAUSE)
Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true.
The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.
(APPLAUSE)
A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends.
(APPLAUSE)
A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country...
(APPLAUSE)
... no country has a greater stake -- no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.
Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.
The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.
You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.
(APPLAUSE)
My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.
(APPLAUSE)
Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, "never again."
(APPLAUSE)
And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
(APPLAUSE)
Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.
But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.
(APPLAUSE)
We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.
(APPLAUSE)
This is why -- this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.
(APPLAUSE)
But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
I know that you stand with Israel.
(APPLAUSE)
You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors.
(APPLAUSE)
Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.
And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), "Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them."
My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.
May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.
.jpeg)
.jpg)
