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
Last week, President Donald Trump announced a new security initiative in the Caribbean and Latin America called the “Shield of the Americas.” This initiative aims to get the U.S. and other South American and Caribbean militaries to combat drug trafficking. It is an admirable and much-needed initiative. Kudos to Trump for investing American military assets to actually help these countries, rather than just threatening them with tariffs to get them to do something. The United States should lead by example and help other countries with practical, material support (rather than just throwing aid money at nations). Some people may worry that military force will cause widespread, violent backlash from cartels (as seen in Mexico in recent weeks after a Mexican military operation against an infamous cartel leader). However, allowing drug cartels to weaponize the fear of violence to make civilians and governments acquiesce to their illegal and immoral activities has resulted in an ugly status quo. It is a status quo where criminals get to basically rule entire regions and do whatever they want. Hopefully, this partnership between the U.S. and Latin American militaries will consider how best to minimize civilian suffering. But doing nothing will not help the people of both South and North America, who have suffered from crime, drugs and violence for decades. Though this initiative is a good step, I do have some problems. Trump nominated Kristi Noem to be a “special envoy” for this initiative. What is the point? She was ousted from her position as Homeland Security Secretary by a bipartisan vote over her mishandling of immigration. An interesting article by Matthew Hennessey of the Wall Street Journal analyzed Noem’s problems through the lens of the “Peter Principle,” which says that employees continue to get promoted until they reach a role beyond their competence, and then fail spectacularly. This fits Noem’s story. Noem began as South Dakota’s House Representative, and then became its 33rd Governor. Eventually, she got promoted to Secretary of Homeland Security and met her ceiling. Perhaps she did well in her roles in her state, but she was unfit for a national job. But if she cannot handle a national role such as that, how will she handle an international role involving a multinational military coalition? This is a cold take, but she shouldn’t be a special envoy, or for that matter, have any role in the initiative. It appears to me that Trump is trying to appease one of his allies with a nice position far away from domestic politics in hopes that she will fade from public consciousness. Another issue is the makeup of the coalition: all the leaders who met with Trump for this initiative were conservatives. Essentially, it seems that this bloc is dominated ideologically by conservatism or those aligned with the Trump populist right-wing movement. While I don’t mind that conservative-leaning Latin American nations, such as Chile, want to help the United States battle against cartels, I worry that this initiative will be hindered if it becomes too ideologically exclusive. Notably, the meeting did not involve major regional powers like Mexico (our close neighbor), Brazil and Colombia. Many cartels are residing within these nations, and they will need U.S. assistance to help root such cartels out. These nations also have decently sized militaries, which will be helpful in this collective American (and I speak of the Americas as a whole) effort to battle crime. Trump has had testy relationships with the leaders of these nations for being left-leaning or belligerent toward him. But Trump should realize that the desire to stop criminal thugs transcends political ideologies, even if we disagree on how to handle them. Trump also needs to recognize that his own belligerence and unruly tariff policy have created unnecessary enemies, especially in South America. It would be both gentlemanly and politically savvy to invite leaders with whom he may not get along. It may be an opportunity to mend relationships, work together for a good cause and increase U.S. reputation and influence in this region, which has often been suspicious of us. Trump has been starting several foreign policy projects in his second term. He has intervened in several conflicts, is currently fighting a war in Iran, and is now trying to get the U.S. more involved with its closed neighbors. It’s surprising for a President who campaigned on being less involved in foreign affairs, but perhaps he can do a lot of good for both the U.S. and the world. But he really needs to put away his worst impulses. He needs to appoint more capable people for crucial jobs and let go of his own ego. He will find that by doing so, he may achieve a more lasting legacy, one in which organized crime in the Americas is severely weakened and crushed. 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 Robert Schmidt for Getty Images.
By Jason Lee
Follow Us