On 21–22 June 2025, while I’m enjoying the presence of my daughters and their families here in the Greater Vancouver Area, Canada, the world witnessed a historic and deeply alarming event: the United States launched a direct military attack on Iranian soil, striking three of its most fortified nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. For the first time in modern history, the U.S. did not just target Iranian proxies or operatives abroad; it attacked the core of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure within its borders. As a Filipino peace builder, this moment compels deep reflection. Such an escalation raises urgent questions about the fragility of international diplomacy and the thresholds that major powers are now willing to cross. It brings into sharp focus the immense human cost that could follow if global leaders abandon dialogue in favor of force. This act not only threatens regional stability in the Middle East but also reverberates globally, challenging all of us who work for peace and justice to redouble our efforts.
The Strike: How It Happened
The assault began in the early hours of June 22 in Iran (around 2:30 a.m. local time). A mix of B‑2 stealth bombers, submarine-launched cruise missiles, and at least 12 to 18 GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs were deployed. Some reports mention as many as 30 cruise missiles used. The goal was clear: obliterate Iran’s uranium enrichment capability. According to U.S. officials, it was a success. Iran, on the other hand, has claimed that while entrances and access points may have been hit, its underground enrichment core was not destroyed.
Why Now? The Rationale
President Trump—bypassing Congress and dismissing caution from U.S. intelligence agencies—framed the operation as a necessary move to stop Iran from advancing toward nuclear weapons capability. But was this truly preemptive defense, or an escalation that could set the region and the world ablaze?
This unilateral action, devoid of Congressional or international support, raises serious ethical and legal questions. It also contradicts long-standing norms of diplomacy, negotiation, and restraint in global conflict resolution.
The Fallout
Regionally, tensions have soared. The threat of Iranian retaliation looms over the Gulf, and already, oil prices have spiked amid fears of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. The potential for retaliation via Iranian proxies across Iraq, Syria, and Yemen is high.
Domestically in the U.S., responses have been polarized. While many Republican leaders supported the strike, key Democratic voices like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned it as unconstitutional and destabilizing. There are already calls for impeachment based on war powers violations.
Globally, allies like Israel praised the move. In contrast, the United Nations and countries like Australia urged restraint and warned of the dire consequences of escalation.
The Broader Picture: As a Peace Builder
From the vantage point of the Philippines—a country with its own legacy of foreign intervention, military aid dependence, and vulnerable geopolitical positioning—this strike is a cautionary tale. Here are some lessons and questions I am grappling with:
- Unilateral Action vs. Multilateral Solutions
The bypassing of Congress and international consensus shows how fragile global systems of checks and balances have become. Where does this leave the United Nations, ASEAN, and other peace-focused institutions? - The Legality of Preemptive War
Can the world accept a precedent where one nation decides, unilaterally, to bomb another based on projected threat? What implications does this hold for smaller, non-nuclear countries? - A Cycle of Violence
Rather than deterring Iran, this may harden its stance. Retaliation could lead to more strikes. Diplomacy is increasingly squeezed out by force. As peace builders, how do we break the cycle? - Economic Shockwaves
Rising oil prices will hit Southeast Asian economies hard. The Philippines, as a net energy importer, is especially vulnerable. We must advocate for energy resilience and prepare our communities for economic ripple effects. - The Role of Civil Society
This moment highlights how vital independent voices are—peace advocates, journalists, human rights defenders—who can speak out against militarism and promote dialogue even when governments choose war.
Final Thoughts
The U.S. attack on Iran marks a turning point—not just for the Middle East, but for global norms on war and peace. For us in the Philippines, it’s a powerful reminder of how interconnected global actions are, and how important it is to speak, act, and organize for peace, even from afar.
In this moment, we must stand for diplomacy, for accountability, and for justice. The world doesn’t need more “shock and awe.” It needs bold, grounded, collective courage to choose peace—even when it’s difficult.
(Writing from the unceded territories of the Musqueam (xʷməθkʷəy̓əm), Squamish (Sḵwx̱wú7mesh), and Tsleil-Waututh (Sel̓íl̓witulh) Nations which the colonial government now refers to as Greater Vancouver Area, Canada.)
