A U.N. mission found possible U.S. war crimes in Iran after a school strike killed 120 children. The panel asks whether international law applies to American power.
PLEASE BECOME A PAID SUBSCRIBER TODAY
We make our newsletters and videos free because everyone deserves the truth, regardless of their ability to pay. To counter the lies of the billionaire and corporate media, we must reach as many Americans as possible. We don’t need unlimited funds, but we rely entirely on small-dollar grassroots support to keep going. Please become a paid subscriber today so we can keep flooding the zone with the truth. We can’t do this without you.
The embedded video contains solely the questions that WBAI’s We Decide’s Jenna Flanagan asked me. The entire panel discussion can be viewed here (Episode: 2026-09-21). We Decide is a joint Pacifica Affiliate, WBAI production, and the We Decide: America at the Crossroads with Jenna Flanagan.
Summary
Jenna Flanagan’s WBAI We Decide discussion confronts a fundamental contradiction: Washington invokes international law against other governments while resisting accountability for its own actions. The segment examines U.N. findings concerning U.S. strikes in Iran, Palestinian exclusion from in-person diplomacy, and the destructive assumption that American power confers moral immunity.
- Civilian lives demand accountability. A U.N.-backed mission found reasonable grounds to believe U.S. strikes in Iran constituted war crimes. Those findings require serious investigation and public scrutiny.
- Palestinian representation matters. The General Assembly authorized virtual participation after U.S. visa restrictions prevented senior Palestinian representatives from attending.
- The discussion challenges selective justice. Human rights lose meaning when governments apply them according to geopolitical alliances.
-
Presidential rhetoric cannot replace evidence. The panel pushes attention toward civilian suffering and responsibility rather than another debate about Trump’s personality.
-
Historical honesty strengthens democratic oversight. The segment connects contemporary impunity with the broader danger of excusing state violence through national mythology.
The progressive demand remains clear: protect civilians, preserve evidence, include Palestinian voices, and hold powerful governments to the standards they demand of everyone else.
Premium Content (Complimentary)
American power does not confer moral innocence. A government cannot proclaim its devotion to human rights while treating accountability as an indignity reserved for weaker nations. That contradiction drives the WBAI “We Decide” discussion hosted by Jenna Flanagan: when Washington stands accused of grave violations, will international institutions pursue the evidence, or will political power once again determine whose suffering matters?
The issue demands more than another argument about Donald Trump’s personality. Reuters reported that a United Nations fact-finding mission found reasonable grounds to believe U.S. strikes on an Iranian school and a sports facility constituted war crimes. The school attack killed more than 150 people, including 120 children. Those findings demand independent scrutiny, disclosure, and an accounting of responsibility. No presidential performance can answer the families’ questions.
The distinction between investigative findings and a criminal conviction strengthens this demand. Accountability requires evidence, identified decision-makers, and a credible legal process. It does not require journalists to pretend the findings carry no weight until a courtroom delivers judgment. Public officials should not escape scrutiny by calling every accusation political. The proper response to documented allegations is to confront the evidence.
International humanitarian law supplies a concrete framework. The International Committee of the Red Cross explains that combatants must distinguish military objectives from civilians and civilian objects, avoid attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm, and take feasible precautions. These obligations address decisions before a weapon strikes. An official’s later expression of regret cannot substitute for examining what commanders knew, what they checked, and what they authorized.
The discussion also exposes the politics of diplomatic exclusion. On September 17, the General Assembly voted 152–3 to permit Palestinian participation by prerecorded statements after U.S. visa restrictions prevented senior representatives from attending. That outcome demonstrates substantial international resistance to Washington’s gatekeeping. A host country should facilitate the institution’s work. It should not turn access to the world’s diplomatic forum into a reward for political obedience.
Punishing Palestinian leaders for pursuing international legal remedies sends a particularly destructive message. Reuters reported that the administration cited efforts to bring the conflict before international tribunals as one of its reasons for extending visa sanctions. The progressive objection is straightforward: institutions lose credibility when powerful governments endorse legal processes only for their adversaries. People cannot reasonably trust a system that obstructs the very avenues it claims should resolve disputes.
The panel’s broader criticism of American exceptionalism raises an essential democratic question. Who benefits when national pride requires silence about state violence? Certainly not civilians beneath the bombs. Certainly not families expected to finance military power while accepting secrecy about its use. A democratic public deserves enough information to judge actions carried out in its name. Patriotism should demand that scrutiny.
The segment’s references to slavery and historic atrocities also point toward a necessary reckoning. History should sharpen the recognition of dehumanization and institutional cruelty. Ranking immense human tragedies adds little to that work. The stronger argument identifies how governments normalize violence, conceal responsibility, and ask ordinary people to accept some lives as expendable.
A progressive response must therefore pair moral clarity with practical demands: preserve evidence, disclose investigative findings, support independent investigators, pursue lawful accountability, and provide meaningful remedies for victims. Diplomacy must include the people whose rights and futures hang in the balance. The United Nations earns its relevance through consistent application of its principles, and American democracy earns credibility through the same discipline. Human dignity cannot depend on the flag attached to the weapon.
