The Department of Justice recently announced charges against ISIS supporters, Emir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi, after they allegedly attempted to detonate two explosive devices within close proximity to Gracie Mansion, home to Mayor Mamdani. The incident arose on March 7, during a counter-protest of right-winger, Jake Lang’s anti-Islam protest called “Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City, Stop New York City Public Muslim Prayer.” The situation quickly got out of hand, with the counter-protesters, referring to themselves as “Run Nazis Out of New York City,” being the ones to throw the bombs at Lang and his constituents. According to the FBI, the young Pennsylvanian men allegedly sought to inflict mass casualties in service to ISIS by attempting to detonate explosive devices in a crowd. This alleged act of terrorism included metal shrapnel being packed into the explosives. The first bomb was thrown towards Lang and his fellow protestors at 12:15 pm by Balat, but it did not detonate. Immediately after throwing the first device, Balat ran down the block and received the second explosive device from Kayumi. Once he ignited the second device, Balat dropped the explosive near several NYPD officers, which also did not ignite, and ran away, with the two being tackled and arrested by the police shortly after. Following their arrest, Balat stated to the NYPD officers, “This isn’t a religion that just stands when people talk about the blessed name of the prophet . . . We take action! We take action!” Additionally, he stated, “If I didn’t do it, someone else will come and do it.” While at the NYPD precinct, Balat wrote on a piece of paper the following: “All praise is due to Allah, lord of all worlds! I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State. Die in your rage yu [sic] kuffar!” Kuffar is an Arabic term referring to non-believers, while “Die in your rage” is a slogan used by ISIS. The investigation remains ongoing and is being handled by the National Security and International Narcotics Unit for the Southern District of New York. Currently, the two have been charged with lighting a pair of improvised explosive devices, providing material support to ISIS, and face the potential of receiving terrorism charges. Some have commented on recent reports from CNN have spun the story to give the illusion that the anti-Islam protesters were the ones throwing the bombs. The outlet stated in a recent post: “Two Pennsylvania teenagers crossed into New York City Saturday morning for what could’ve been a normal day, enjoying the city during abnormally warm weather. But in less than an hour, their lives would drastically change as the pair would be arrested for throwing homemade bombs during an anti-Muslim outside protest at Mayor Mamdani’s home.” After receiving significant online backlash for the deceptive phrasing of the attack, CNN had to take down its posts. Mamdani’s office stated that the situation was a “crusade against Islamification,” despite the attackers being ISIS sympathizers who made death threats to “kill Jake Lang” before the first bomb was thrown. Ultimately, Jake Lang’s argument that people who come from third-world countries with radical Islamic ideals are not compatible with Western culture was proven in his favor by the attack.
By Alexandra Miskewitz
Hegseth Iran Presser Cold Open – Saturday Night Live SNL portrays another Iran press conference, and this time Colin Jost’s Pete Hegseth hit such diverse pop culture references as Papa Roach and Sebastian from “The Little Mermaid,” and his Jamaican accent, all while acting like a frat bro. During Q and A with the press corps, Hegseth shows off his chops as “White Hamilton” by rapping about his drinking. Pete gives some time to Ashley Padilla’s Kristi Noem, who describes her new office for Shield of the Americas as a WeWork outside of Denver, heavily implying that Trump is trying to exile her after her Homeland Security firing. Iran Boasts It Has Destroyed Hundreds Of US Missiles With Its Own Buildings – The Babylon Bee The Babylon Bee does its best to turn the perpetual carnage of the Iranian landscape into a joke by having Iran claim it is strategically destroying US missiles by having its buildings be hit by them. This joke is heightened when a regime spokesman brags about the “missing” missiles before strategically placing himself in front of one. And of course the navy isn’t sunk, it’s going underwater to avoid detection. Does Your Country Need A Regime Change? A Quiz – McSweeney’s In this very cleverly written piece for McSweeney’s (whether you agree with it or not), the author responds to the President’s claims that Iran needs a regime change by designing a neutral set of questions designed to test regime change necessity. As the questions unfold, it’s clear that while situations like a dictator naming things after himself and trying to create his own currency could apply to Iran, there are clear similarities to President Trump. The author makes this explicit with sublinks to other articles detailing Trump’s activities that could be loosely described as megalomaniacal. And then the article ends with the author saying, “If you answered yes to these questions, you should non-violently protest your leader.” A not very subtle call to action against the current President. Kristi Noem Reassigned To Scarecrow Role At USDA – The Onion The Onion captured the abrupt downfall of recently fired former DHS secretary Kristi Noem by now having her role reduced to being a scarecrow. The best joke was the White House having her gradually adjust to being a scarecrow by having her wear a giant burlap hat at Washington functions. And of course, even in satirical fiction, her new career as a scarecrow couldn’t end well, as she is fired due to a failure rate of crops. Kristi Noem Ponders New Role – The Humor Times In this satirical piece, President Trump praised the recently fired DHS secretary. “She did a good job, for a skirt.” Noem’s new post in the Shield of the Americas is described as being directly involved in shooting boats full of illegal immigrants and providing assault weapons to ICE. In a stark statement, Noem defends her new role, “I shot my own dog, I killed three Americans in Minneapolis, this job is baby stuff.” A very dark take on Noem’s DHS firing.
By Jason Luna
Are wars ever justifiable? Morally? Legally? Philosophically? Any ally’s analysis might seem pointless when applied to something as atrocious as war. In international relations, “Just War Theory” offers a framework for conducting war legally. On Feb. 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. The attack resulted in the murder of the state’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Since then, there has been controversy regarding the legality of the operation, especially in light of similar operations in Venezuela, which were largely criticized by the international community. The United Nations (UN) seems to have made up its mind on the subject. In a recent statement, the international organization condemned the operation, citing it as an “unprovoked attack” that lacked “authorisation from the Security Council.” Under the UN’s charter, an aggressive attack such as the one in Iran would, at the very least, require clearance from the UN Security Council. The issue then starts with how the attack was initiated. Not necessarily because of its aggressive nature, as even the most pacifist bodies like the UN have largely discarded the argument that wars or military attacks for dispute resolution are never necessary. But, instead, in how the norms in international law were not properly followed. An ethical framework that underlines these regulations is the “Just War Theory,” a set of guidelines aimed at creating “Just” wars to the best extent possible. What is the “Just War Theory” The “Just War Theory” theory splits into three parts: Jus ad Bellum, which looks at the decision of resorting to war; Jus in Bello, which describes the rules that govern just and fair conduct in war; and Jus post Bellum, which looks at the responsibility and accountability of parties after war. The first stage, Jus ad Bellum, contains several components to determine whether a state has correctly decided to resort to war. These are “having a just case, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.” The second stage, Jus in Bello, considers the two broad principles of discrimination and proportionality. The two principles determine whether the targets for war were legitimate and whether the amount of force used was appropriate given the war’s objective. The third stage, Jus post Bellum, acknowledges the need for creating a system of accountability and responsibility for the termination of war and its subsequent transition to peace. The framework holds great credibility in both academic and practical fields. Academically, it is a well-established field dating back to the 4th century, with the Christian Theologian St. Augustine of Hippo. In practice, it overlaps greatly with the UN Charter, particularly Chapter VII, which outlines the appropriate responses to “Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression.” The chapter, similarly to the “Just War” framework, encourages the use of diplomacy rather than aggression in the face of a disagreement. It also recognizes the possibility of relying on military attacks as a last resort in cases that threaten or disturb peace. Applying the “Just War” Framework Considering the conflict is ongoing, the first two stages are relevant to the analysis of the Iran attack. It is easy to see what features of Jus ad Bellum could be problematic for the U.S. and Israel. Primarily, “having a just cause” is already controversial due to the lack of solid explanations that have been released as to the overall purpose of the attack. In a recorded video, Trump claimed the attack addressed Tehran’s “unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder targeting the United States,” which is an overly broad, far from satisfying, justification. The justification aims to be preemptive, in which a nation decides to strike first based on the knowledge that another nation will issue a strike, rather than preventive, where there is no immediate precipitating threat. Whether or not the justification is valid, the abruptness of the attack speaks for itself. In a recorded message, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered a concrete, but not fully compliant, reason: “The aim of the operation is to put an end to the threat from the Ayatollah regime in Iran.” The provided reason is still not a “just” cause for instituting regime change, as it undermines the basic principle underlying the UN’s respect for national sovereignty. The decision is not a last resort, especially given that the attack occurred amid diplomatic conversations between the U.S. and Iran, which others, such as Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, had interpreted as becoming productive. The Jus in Bello analysis is slightly problematic. Although the U.S. and Israel complied with the first principle of attacking legitimate targets in a war, the second principle of proportionality remains ongoing, and the decision on its legality is therefore pending. Whether the attack is a smart economic decision or will result in greater peace is still uncertain, but what is certain is the illegality of the approach behind it. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole. The image accompanying this article was taken by Arash Khamooshi of the New York Times.
By Briana Leibowicz Turchiaro
Follow Us