Viewpoint |
The world keeps calling it a ceasefire while bombs still fall on Gaza

This opinion piece questions the legitimacy of calling the situation in Gaza a ceasefire while airstrikes and civilian deaths continue. The article argues that language surrounding the conflict has obscured the reality faced by families living under ongoing bombardment.


by Yumna Zahid Ali
Guest Commentator


A ceasefire means the firing ceases.

That is not a sponsored conclusion or a political position. That is, in American English, British English, Australian English, Canadian English, Irish English, Nigerian English, and every other English spoken in every other corner of this earth, the literal definition of the word. So someone needs to explain, clearly and without the usual diplomatic fog, how Gaza is still being bombed while this so-called truce is in place.

oursentinel.com viewpoint
Ceasefire? More like cease-for-an-hour. Because that is all it has ever amounted to: a pause in the coverage, not a pause in the coffins.

Say that again. A pause in the coverage, not a pause in the coffins.

And as that so-called pause is being celebrated, hospitals are being bombed while negotiators shake hands in air-conditioned rooms. Entire families are being wiped off the civil registry while spokespeople read prepared statements about their commitment to peace. Neighborhoods that had names, that had bakeries and schools and people who knew each other, are being reduced to grey powder while the international community expresses its deep and apparently bottomless concern. That concern has never once stopped a single airstrike. Not one. And yet they keep offering it, as if concern is a substitute for action, as if words spoken into a microphone have ever pulled anyone out of the concrete.

When you call a bombing campaign a ceasefire, you are not just being inaccurate. You are providing cover.

The dead in Gaza do not care about your press releases. They do not care about your ties or your flags or your solemn faces at the podium. They weep over one outcome and one outcome only: whether the bombs stop. THE BOMBS DID NOT STOP. So everything else, the agreements, the statements, the carefully worded communiqués, the handshakes in front of flags, all of it was a hoax. A spotlight-ready, well-funded, internationally-endorsed hoax. And you are not supposed to applaud a hoax that ends with children dying. You are supposed to ask why it keeps getting cheered on.

Honestly, this is not a ceasefire, and you need to stop letting them call it that. Because the moment you accept their language, you have already accepted their version of reality, and their version of reality is engineered precisely to make you feel like something is being done when nothing is being done. Words matter. When you call a bombing campaign a ceasefire, you are not just being inaccurate. You are providing cover. You are handing the people responsible a shield made out of language, and they will use it, and they have been using it, and people have been dying underneath it.

Look at the logic and follow it all the way to the end. If a ceasefire agreement exists and strikes are still happening, then one of two things must be true. Either the people responsible for enforcing it are completely powerless, or they are fully aware and have simply chosen not to stop it. There is no third option. There is no innocent explanation hiding somewhere in the fine print. Both possibilities are a catastrophic indictment of every government, every institution, and every leader who stood in front of a camera and told the world that this agreement meant something. Pick whichever one you believe. Both of them mean Gaza was abandoned willfully, with criminal awareness.

The people of Gaza are not living through a diplomatic complication. They are living through an active bombardment that is being conducted underneath the legal and moral cover of a ceasefire that was never real. A mother in Gaza tonight is not thinking about the negotiation timeline or the political complexities of the region. She is trying to keep her children alive through another round of airstrikes that are happening during an agreement the entire world signed off on and then apparently forgot about by morning.

At some point, this stops being a failure of the process and becomes a defended feature of it. Failures get corrected. Things that keep happening over and over again, in the same way, with the same outcomes and the same silence from the same powerful countries, are not failures anymore. They are decisions. Well-fed, well-protected, and well-compensated decisions made by people who will never pay the toll they trigger.

Gaza is not a negotiating paragraph in a treaty. The people there are not abstractions in a geopolitical equation. They are human beings who were told the bombs would stop and then had to watch the bombs not stop. And the very least the rest of the world can do, the absolute minimum, is refuse to call this a ceasefire when it so visibly, so grotesquely, so inarguably is not one. Because if we cannot even get the words right, we were never serious about getting anything else right either.


About the author ~

Yumna Zahid Ali is a writer and educator who spends her free time reading, analyzing literature, and exploring cultural and intellectual debates. When she’s not writing for global audiences, she enjoys reflecting on societal issues and using her voice to challenge inequities, especially those affecting women. She also loves diving into history, believing that remembering the past is an act of defiance and a way to hold power accountable.


More Editorial Viewpoints

TAGS: Gaza ceasefire debate, ongoing bombings in Gaza, Middle East conflict opinion, international response to Gaza, humanitarian crisis commentary
Published on

Letter to the Editor |
The U.S. shouldn't bomb Iran back "where they belong"

Sentinel logo
Americans must look to diplomacy over the destruction in dealing with Iran.


Dear Editor,

In his address to the nation, President Trump said the U.S. would bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, "where they belong." He even threatened to destroy "electric generating plants."

What will this mean for the most vulnerable, such as hospital patients, the elderly, and newborns in intensive care?

Historian and political theorist Achille Mbembe, author of Necropolitics, coined the term “death-worlds,” describing how the powerful impose conditions on populations that amount to a living death. Mbembe writes, “The ultimate expression of sovereignty largely resides in the power and capacity to dictate who is able to live and who must die." Gaza is a notable example.

Have we forgotten that, shortly after 9/11, some 60,000 fans at a soccer match in Iran observed a minute of silence for the victims? Or that thousands in Tehran held candlelit vigils, showing solidarity and compassion?

We must reject Trump's dehumanizing language, reclaim our shared humanity, and choose diplomacy over destruction.


Terry Hansen
Grafton, WI

Terry Hansen is a retired educator from Grafton, WI, who writes frequently about climate change and on human rights. He lives in Grafton, WIsconsin.

Related articles to read:

TAGS:
Published on

Viewpoint |
The costs of the Iran Conflict are rising, accountability is not

One month into a war the White House says is going well, this Viewpoint from Van Abbott argues the opposite — that the U.S.-Iran conflict is quietly eroding American economic strength, weakening global alliances, and repeating the strategic mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by Van Abbott
Guest Commentator


The war is not won. It is not even close.

President Trump says otherwise. That claim is not a mistake. It is a necessity. Acknowledging failure would expose the truth this administration cannot afford to admit: one month into the conflict that began February 28 with Iran, the United States is poorer, weaker, and less secure than when it began.

The costs are already staggering. Tens of billions of dollars have been consumed with little to show beyond destruction. Fuel prices have surged, driving up transportation costs across the economy. Supply disruptions from the Gulf are beginning to ripple through American manufacturing. These are not abstract figures. They are the early signs of a war that is eroding economic strength at home while delivering no measurable gain abroad.

A declaration of victory is required to sustain support, even when conditions on the ground contradict it.

Strategically, the damage is deeper. American positions across the Middle East have contracted, not expanded. Analysts suggest U.S. military bases have been damaged, evacuated, or destroyed. Intelligence relationships have frayed as allies question Washington’s reliability after erratic decisions and unilateral strikes. Adversaries are not retreating; they are adapting. Russia benefits from higher energy prices that help finance its war in Ukraine. China is moving quickly to secure alternative trade routes and deepen its regional influence. While the White House speaks of dominance, the global balance of power is quietly shifting away from the United States.

At home, the consequences will not remain distant for long. War-inflation moves quickly and unevenly. Energy costs rise first, followed by food and housing. Wages lag behind. The administration describes these effects as temporary, but markets tend to recognize instability before governments admit it. Prolonged conflict will bring neither stability in the Middle East nor relief for American households. It will deliver sustained pressure on both.

History offers a warning the country has ignored before. Iraq was presented as liberation and ended in strategic exhaustion. Afghanistan became a twenty-year effort that concluded with the return of the very forces it sought to remove. These were failures not of courage or capability, but of purpose and judgment. Iran now risks becoming the next chapter in a pattern the United States has yet to break.

The deeper problem is political. This war cannot be easily concluded because it cannot be honestly assessed. A declaration of victory is required to sustain support, even when conditions on the ground contradict it. Information narrows. Public updates diminish. Official statements grow more confident as underlying realities become less certain. In that environment, the war becomes less a national undertaking than a controlled narrative.

It is worth asking who benefits from that narrative. Defense contractors secure long-term demand, energy producers profit from volatility, and political allies avoid difficult votes. The burdens fall elsewhere, on service members, on taxpayers, and on households adjusting to rising costs. The longer the conflict continues, the wider the gap grows between those who bear its costs and those who shape its direction.

War tests more than military strength. It tests whether a government can tell the truth about what it is doing and why.

President Trump once promised to end “endless wars.” Instead, this conflict risks becoming one. It is sustained not by clear objectives but by the political cost of reversal. A war without defined success can always be extended. A war without accountability can always be justified.

There is still time to limit the damage. Congress retains the constitutional authority to define and constrain the use of force. It can require transparency, set boundaries, and insist on measurable objectives. A free press can challenge official claims rather than repeat them. Citizens can demand clarity about costs, risks, and outcomes before accepting assurances of progress.

War tests more than military strength. It tests whether a government can tell the truth about what it is doing and why. When that capacity erodes, the outcome is determined long before the fighting ends.

Without accountability, the cycle will continue, draining national strength, distorting priorities, weakening alliances, and turning permanent conflict into a substitute for strategy and democratic consent.

This war was never winnable under the terms on which it was sold. That truth will not come from those who began it, but from the public that is paying for it and will continue to bear its cost.

Its consequences will outlast the last shot, echo beyond the last speech, and endure long after the final excuse has faded. The judgment they refuse to render will fall to the country they have led into war. Vote in November.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.


More Editorial Viewpoints


What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

Published on

Viewpoint |
Has Trump gone too far? Respond at the ballot box if you think so

oursentinel.com viewpoint
This commentary questions whether Donald Trump has exceeded acceptable limits through a series of political and policy decisions. It outlines concerns ranging from pardons and foreign policy to economic impacts and domestic governance. The piece argues that many Americans are now feeling the effects of these actions.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by John Mishler


Mr. Trump pardoned hundreds of individuals convicted of attempting to subvert a lawful and secure national election by a violent assault on law enforcement officers. Did he go too far? In addition, he pardoned several individuals convicted of cryptocurrency manipulation. Gone too far? He and his family have received hundreds of millions of dollars with their blatant cryto-related business ventures. Has he gone too far? He has received a 747 jetliner as a gift. Gone too far?

He has encouraged the unlawful removal of thousands of federal employees targeted by Elon Musk/DOGE. Gone too far? He has politicized various government departments (e.g., Department of Justice, Department of Defense, etc.) and demanded they follow his whims and desires, rather than uphold state, federal, and international laws. Has he gone too far? With his own hateful rhetoric he has encouraged ICE to brutalize innocent citizens and lawful immigrants, even allowing the murder of said American citizens, in addition to the deaths of immigrants held in federal detention centers. Gone too far?

He has torn down the East Wing of the White House, without proper approvals, to be replaced by a hideous, gigantic ballroom. Has he gone too far? He has “added” his name to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Gone too far?

He has allowed two totally unqualified individuals (two real estate brokers) to negotiate extremely important treaties with Russia/Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza/Israel. Has he gone too far? He has disrupted important relationships the United States has with NATO and the European Union. Gone too far?

His “Big, Beautiful Bill,” has eliminated healthcare subsidies for millions of hardworking Americans

He has “pressured” law firms, colleges and universities, and media companies to “follow” his desire and eliminate DEI policies. Gone too far? He has instructed the Department of Justice to put forth criminal/civil charges against innocent political opponents without evidence of unlawful conduct. Has he gone too far?

His name has appeared in numerous documents related to the Epstein files, including an alleged incident of sexual assault against a minor. Has he gone too far? In addition, he is hindering the full and complete release of all documents, files, videos, photographs, and other pertinent materials related to the Epstein investigation. Gone too far?

Trump has “added on" additional taxes on imported goods, paid for by US citizens, by virtue of his imposed tariffs placed on products from foreign countries. Gone too far? His “Big, Beautiful Bill,” has eliminated healthcare subsidies for millions of hardworking Americans, as well as SNAP benefits. Gone too far?

Trump’s “unnecessary” war with Iran has resulted in the loss of lives of US service members, caused chaos in the Middle East, and significantly raised the price of gasoline, heating oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and other petroleum-based products. Has he finally gone too far? Did he reach the tipping point…. yes. BUT why? For most Americans, all of the “misadventures” listed above, happened to other individuals/organizations and did not significantly/directly impact their own lives. However, as a result of his unjustified conflict/excursion/war, petroleum products NOW suddenly cost more and are rising on a daily basis - NOW, on a personal level, most Americans feel the “pain" of Mr. Trump’s foolish behavior.

Ergo, too many Americans have been “asleep” during the initial stages of Mr. Trump’s second term. BUT, now suddenly “personally feeling” the pain of higher prices at the gas pumps, soon to be followed by higher prices for most goods relying on gasoline/petroleum products, we have begun to notice how “tainted” Trump’s tenure as president has been.

Is there a remedy for his unrelenting toxic actions? Yes, the upcoming midterm elections, where Americans can elect candidates who care more about their constituents, than following the whims of Mr. Trump and his sycophants (“This year’s political candidates: carefully examine their party affiliation,” Storm Lake Times Pilot, 02/06/2026).

So, we can reclaim our Democracy in the coming election, BUT only if we support worthwhile candidates BY VOTING! Maybe a new cohort of honest and law-abiding US Senate and House members can thwart any further “how far is too far” misadventures by Mr. Trump.


About the author ~

John M. Mishler was a former Associate Vice Chancellor for Research and Professor of Basic Life Sciences, Medicine, and Pharmacology at the University of Missouri. He currently resides in Harpswell, Maine.


More Editorial Viewpoints

TAGS: Donald Trump political commentary 2026, opinion on Trump policies and midterm elections, analysis of Trump economic and foreign policy impact, voter response to political controversies United States, midterm elections importance voter participation opinion
Published on

Guest Commentary |
A public health perspective on Iran: They are more like us than we think

oursentinel.com viewpoint
A global health expert's research revealed unexpected similarities between Iran and the United States—comparable life expectancy, higher literacy rates, and superior childhood immunization coverage—before U.S. and Israeli strikes began destroying hospitals, killing 160 schoolgirls, and creating food shortages. The data suggests Iranians lived lives not so different from Americans just weeks ago.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by Mary Anne Mercer, MPH, DrPH


My work in global health always nudges me to learn about places and people I read about in the news. Right now: Iran, of course. Though I’ve never been there, I knew it was an incredibly old civilization, dating back several millennia with a vibrant culture and elegant, stunning architecture from the past. In recent decades it’s been led by a dictatorial, hard-line Muslim, the Supreme Leader.

I investigated a few facts about the country because understanding how the health of people in other settings compares with ours is often enlightening. Iran is poorer economically than the U.S., so the population probably would have lower living standards, life expectancy, and literacy rates than we do. I’ve worked in public health in a number of low-income countries, so I also expected that use of important services like immunizations for children and family planning for women would be limited.

A quick web search revealed that, indeed, our population is much wealthier than Iran’s. That country has a median income of $4300, compared to the U.S. with around $19,300.

But the other assumptions didn’t fit what I expected. A surprising 100% of the population has access to electricity. Much lower life expectancy? No, they are not dying at young ages: the average Iranian man in 2024 would live to be 76 years old, not far behind the American man at 77 years. I also didn’t expect that most of the main causes of death were the same as ours – heart disease, stroke, hypertension and injuries. Adult literacy, an important social determinant of health, was even more perplexing: only 11% of Iranians were nonliterate in 2023, compared to 21% of Americans around that time.

Maternal and child health practices are important monitors of a population’s well-being. So, another surprise: over 99% of Iranian children have the full set of immunizations by age five--while in the U.S. that rate is only 94% and said to be dropping. For women, childbearing patterns hint at their roles in family decision-making. How does that work in this solidly Muslim country? Another puzzler: at today’s birth rates, both Iranian and American women will have, on average, fewer than two children over their lifetimes.

Pondering these numbers, I couldn’t escape the feeling that Iranians were, put simply, very much like us. They have strong families, send their children off to school every day, have basic conveniences and an efficient public health system.

Or at least they did, until the current military onslaught by the U.S. and Israel began. Since then, the devastation of the country has been relentless: bombing of military targets with unknown numbers of civilian deaths— including the well-documented strike that killed some 160 schoolgirls. Over a dozen hospitals have been bombed, a pall of toxic “black rain” has fallen on Tehran as a result of the destruction of oil facilities, and food shortages in the cities are under way. It appears, however, that to date the death, destruction and massive displacement inflicted on their country has only strengthened the determination of the Iranian leadership, and also perhaps its people, to endure.

At some point this war will end. Until then the people of Iran, whose everyday lives had not been so very different from ours just a few weeks ago, will continue to go to bed every night wondering what hell the Americans and Israelis will inflict their country the next day.


About the author ~
Dr. Mary Anne Mercer is a University of Washington public health faculty member and author whose four-decade career has focused on maternal and child health in developing nations. Beginning with her transformative year providing immunizations in rural Nepal in 1978, she has developed health projects in 14 countries and authored books including Beyond the Next Village (2022) and Sickness and Wealth: The Corporate Assault on Global Health. Her recent work strengthening midwifery care through mobile technology in Timor-Leste has been adopted as a national program.


More Editorial Viewpoints


What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

TAGS: Iran United States health comparison literacy immunization, Iran childhood vaccination rates 99 percent, U.S. Iran war civilian casualties hospitals bombed, global health perspective Middle East conflict
Published on

Viewpoint |
How Trump's decision to strike Iran fits a troubled history of U.S. intervention

oursentinel.com viewpoint
President Trump approved strikes that killed Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and over 165 children in a destroyed primary school, contradicting his earlier claims that Iran's nuclear program was "obliterated".


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by Van Abbott
Guest Commentator


They told Americans this would be a surgical strike, a narrow operation, a last resort. Instead, President Trump and his advisers approved an attack that toppled Iran’s supreme leader, wounded his son, and destroyed a primary school filled with girls. More than 165 children died in the opening hours, their classrooms reduced to rubble.

Iran will not remember Trump’s speeches. It will remember the sirens, the shattered buildings, and the small shoes pulled from the debris. Those images will live in the minds of Iranians for generations, turning grief into anger and anger into resolve.

To understand how destructive this decision may prove, it helps to recall how Iran’s conflict with the West began. In 1953 the CIA and British intelligence helped overthrow Iran’s elected prime minister after he moved to nationalize Iranian oil. The coup restored the Shah and tied Iran’s political future to Western strategic interests.

For many Iranians, the episode became lasting proof that Washington would undermine democracy to protect its power and economic interests.

When the 1979 Iranian revolution toppled the Shah, it did so partly in response to that history of interference. The bitterness deepened during the Iran–Iraq war, when the West supported Iraqi ruler Hussein. Decades of sanctions and unwavering Western support for Israel reinforced a belief inside Iran that the United States was not an honest broker.

Against that backdrop, Trump’s war does not represent a reset. It adds another bitter chapter to a history already defined by coups, sanctions, and conflict. For many Irania

ns, the strikes will not be seen as strategy but as confirmation of long-held suspicions about America.

The joint American and Israeli strikes that killed Ayatollah Khamenei may satisfy hawks in Washington and Jerusalem. Yet they also produced civilian casualties that will shape the views of a new generation of Iranians. The girls killed in that school were not soldiers or scientists. They were children sitting at their desks when the missiles struck.

Trump argues the attack was necessary because Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon. Yet his claim conflicts with both his own statements and long-standing intelligence assessments. Only eight months earlier he had declared Iran’s nuclear program “obliterated.” Intelligence agencies reported it had merely been delayed.

Over time, analysts who challenged Trump’s narrative found themselves sidelined. When leaders punish unwelcome facts, they weaken the guardrails meant to prevent reckless decisions.

Diplomacy fared no better. Trump placed sensitive negotiations in the hands of Jared Kushner and real estate developer Steve Witkoff. They met Iranian representatives without nuclear specialists present.

Witkoff warned publicly that Iran’s stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium could produce several bombs within weeks. Nuclear experts noted that enrichment level alone does not equal a functioning weapon.

Trump now insists Iran was on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, contradicting both his earlier claims and years of intelligence assessments.

Iranian negotiators suggested they might surrender that stockpile in exchange for sanctions relief. They also noted that enrichment accelerated only after Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement.

That decision sits at the center of the crisis. Trump dismantled an agreement designed to constrain Iran’s nuclear activity, then used the escalation that followed as justification for war.

Even some administration officials acknowledge that Israel’s determination to strike Iran shaped Washington’s timeline. U.S. forces moved first partly out of concern that unilateral Israeli action would trigger retaliation against American targets.

That danger extends far beyond the Middle East. Iran and its allies have long relied on covert operations and proxy attacks. By killing Iran’s top leaders and widening the conflict, Trump may also have increased the risk that retaliation could occur far from Tehran, potentially including inside the United States.

The path to war also raises troubling questions about diplomatic good faith. Negotiations continued even as military planning intensified. Iranian representatives reportedly learned the talks were over only after missiles were already in the air.

The result is a profound strategic gamble. Trump now insists Iran was on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, contradicting both his earlier claims and years of intelligence assessments.

Which version will the world believe?

More important, what will Iranians believe: that the United States intervened to remove a dangerous regime, or that it launched an unjust war that killed their leaders and their children?

Trump’s decision may have sealed a new generation of hostility. A history already marked by coups, sanctions, and regional conflict now carries fresh memories of destruction.

Peace in the Middle East has always been fragile. After this war, it may be far harder to imagine. And Americans may yet discover that the consequences do not stop overseas.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.


More Editorial Viewpoints


What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

Trump Iran military strike 2026 civilian casualties, Ayatollah Khamenei killed U.S. attack, Iran nuclear weapons program Trump claims, U.S. Iran relations historical context 1953 coup
Published on

A senseless war: Trump lights a fuse that will burn uncontrolled

oursentinel.com viewpoint
Trump’s phrase, “some people will die,” reduces everything to numbers. To him, the people who will suffer in the turmoil to come are faceless pawns.


oursentinel.com viewpoint
by Van Abbott


When a president shrugs at the prospect of death, it reveals more than his intentions. “Some people will die,” Donald Trump said almost offhand as his administration committed the nation to war with Iran. Those four words captured the moral emptiness at the heart of this conflict and the cold calculation behind it.

This war is unjust, unprovoked, and unwinnable. It has been sold to the public with muddled rhetoric about deterrence, freedom, and national pride. Yet every justification collapses under scrutiny. The administration cannot even agree on the purpose of the war. The reasoning changes from week to week, as if constant repetition might transform confusion into strategy. The truth is painful but plain: there is no strategy at all.

By ordering the killing of Iran’s supreme leader and much of his senior circle, Trump lit a fuse that cannot be controlled. Iran is a nation that transforms grievance into duty. It remembers its martyrs, teaches their stories, and defines identity through vengeance. Anyone who imagines such a strike will be forgotten misunderstands both the politics and the faith that drive Iran’s resolve.

The concern is not a single transaction but a recurring structure in which public authority and private enterprise operate without durable separation.

History already offers warnings. In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa (religious decree), calling for the death of writer Salman Rushdie, whose novel The Satanic Verses was deemed blasphemous. The order did not fade with time. More than thirty years later, in 2022, Rushdie was attacked while speaking in New York and permanently blinded in one eye. The long pursuit of that sentence shows how patient Iranian vengeance can be and how little it depends on borders, treaties, or decades.

Iranian operatives have repeatedly shown that their reach is global. In 2011, U.S. authorities disrupted a plot by the Quds Force (elite guard) to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington. In 2022, the Justice Department charged an Iranian agent with trying to arrange the murder of former National Security Adviser John Bolton. These plots were not symbolic. They were calculated, Every long‑planned, and personal. Tehran’s leaders see justice as a sacred duty and revenge as an article of faith. American officials who helped plan or justify this war should understand the danger they have unleashed. Tehran does not draw fine lines between decision-makers and their families. Its definition of accountability can span generations and continents. The United States has initiated a conflict that will not end with its final airstrike. It has invited consequences that will travel and linger.

The Iraq War should have taught us this lesson. Americans were promised democracy, security, and swift victory, yet what followed was chaos, extremism, and loss. The same pattern is emerging again. Another administration claims it knows better than the past, that technology, resolve, or ideology will deliver a different result. The record of history suggests otherwise.

This new war began without credible intelligence, without an international coalition, and without a moral foundation. It is a policy built on vanity rather than vision. The public has not been given a single clear explanation worthy of the price demanded in American lives. It is soldiers who will die first, then perhaps civilians at home who will die later, victims of a vengeance foretold.

Trump’s phrase, “some people will die,” reduces everything to numbers. Yet these are not numbers. They are individuals with names and faces. They are young Americans wearing uniforms under a desert sun, Iranians defending what they believe to be sacred soil, and perhaps one day citizens in quiet towns far from any battlefield. The administration has mistaken dominance for wisdom, power for purpose, and violence for vision.

What comes next is predictable. There will be attacks that shock the public, condemnations from leaders who claim no one could have known, calls for unity against a foe we provoked. But this future has already been written. It is drawn from a history of arrogance, ignorance, and blindness, from the refusal of leaders to hear the warnings of experience.

Wars of choice always choose their own victims. Trump’s war with Iran will not stop at the front lines. It will reach embassies, airports, and neighborhoods. It will reach those who believed they were safe. Some people will die, as he said, but there will be many more than he imagined. When a nation starts an unjust war, it loses control not only of its enemies but of its own fate.


About the author ~
Van Abbott is a long time resident of Alaska and California. He has held financial management positions in government and private organizations in California, Kansas, and Alaska. He is retired and writes Op-Eds as a hobby. He served in the Peace Corps in the late sixties. You can find more of his commentaries and comments on life in America on Substack.


More Editorial Viewpoints


What do you think?
Whether you agree, disagree, or want to build on the ideas in this piece, we’d love to hear your voice. If you have an opinion you’d like to share — on this topic or any other — you can find our submission guidelines here: Sentinel submission guideline.

We welcome a wide range of viewpoints and would be glad to consider your perspective for publication on OurSentinel.com. . Send your letter or commentary to editor@oursentinel.com and help keep the community conversation moving forward.

TAGS:
Published on

Viewpoint |
October 7

Yumna Zahid Ali challenges the narrative that Oct. 7 marks the start of the Gaza conflict. It details a continuous timeline of control, siege, and violence dating back to 1948.


by Yumna Zahid Ali, Guest Commentator

The war did not begin on October 7, 2023, no matter how loudly that date is repeated to erase the long history of occupation and conflict that came before it. October 7 is used as a license to forget, a convenient starting line that allows seventy-five years of dispossession, occupation, siege, and repeated military assaults to be reduced to historical ash. But the testimonies of the oppressed do not work that way.

oursentinel.com viewpoint
Wars do not begin when the powerful decide to start counting; they begin when people are uprooted from their land, dignity, safety, and any right to futurity, and Gaza’s story begins in 1948, not in 2023.

In 1948, during what Palestinians call Al-Nakba, or “The Catastrophe,” the creation of the State of Israel came with the forced displacement of at least 750,000 Palestinians from their ancestral land. Entire villages were cleared, homes demolished or seized, and families sent into exile under the illusion that it was only for a short time. It was not. Those refugees were never allowed to return, and Gaza became one of the places where their descendants were compressed into a narrow strip of land where loss was perpetuated, not remembered. When Gaza is bombed today, it is not just a city under fire; it is a refugee camp built on an unresolved crime.

... a diplomatic solution over time revealed itself as management of the conflict rather than its resolution, breeding disillusionment instead of reconciliation.

In 1967, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip following the Six-Day War, placing its population under military rule and control. From that moment forward, Gaza’s residents did not control their borders, their airspace, or their freedom of movement. Daily life was regulated by an occupying power that could decide who traveled, who entered, who passed through a checkpoint, who received medicine, and who would have their name crossed out. This was not a temporary emergency measure; it was the normalization of domination, and it hardened a sense of injustice, not because Palestinians rejected peace, but because they were never offered freedom.

By 1987, that pressure escalated into the First Intifada, a mass uprising driven largely by civilians who used protests, strikes, and civil disobedience to confront decades of occupation. It was not an armed invasion but a civilian-led revolt born from humiliation and dehumanization, and it was met with ferocious military force, mass arrests, beatings, and live ammunition. This was the state screaming its only truth: “We have the guns. Your justice is a fantasy. Obey.”

The 1990s brought the Oslo Accords, which were sold to the world as a peace process but felt to many Palestinians like an agreement to keep talking about…an agreement that would never come. While a Palestinian Authority was created, real sovereignty never followed, and Israel retained decisive control over borders, armed enforcement, and colonization. Settlement expansion continued in the West Bank, occupation remained intact, and Gaza was targeted for further degradation. What was presented as a diplomatic solution over time revealed itself as management of the conflict rather than its resolution, breeding disillusionment instead of reconciliation.

In 2005, Israel announced its unilateral “disengagement” from Gaza, withdrawing settlers and soldiers from inside the strip while keeping its chokehold over its airspace, territorial waters, population registry, and all land crossings. Gaza was not freed; it was sealed. Its people could not move, trade, or rebuild freely, and the territory became dependent on an occupying power that claimed it was no longer responsible while still maintaining a remote-controlled siege. This contradiction was the catalyst for what followed.

This was not an accidental escalation. It was a one-sided, deeply imbalanced war.

When Hamas won Palestinian elections in 2006, Gaza was placed under a strangling blockade by Israel, with Egypt’s cooperation and Western backing. This was not a counter-terrorism operation; it was collective punishment imposed on over two million people, most of them civilians, many of them children still in diapers. The blockade crippled Gaza’s economy, restricted food, medicine, fuel, and construction materials, and trapped every last soul in a sealed enclosure. Despair deepened, and the world largely accepted it as necessary.

What followed were repeated military assaults that reinforced the reality of Gaza as a place where civilian life was expendable. In 2008–2009, Operation Cast Lead killed around 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of children, while Israel lost 13 people, several from friendly fire. In 2012, Operation Pillar of Defense left 167 Palestinians dead in just eight days. In 2014, Operation Protective Edge devastated Gaza over 51 days, killing more than 2,200 Palestinians, over 500 of them children, and flattening densely populated city quarters while Gaza remained shrink-wrapped and unable to shelter its people. Each assault cycled back to the same four words: ceasefire, rubble, blockade, trauma.

In 2018, Palestinians attempted a different form of resistance through the Great March of Return, where largely unarmed protesters demanded an end to the blockade and the restitution of their right of return to the homes dispossessed in 1948. They were quelled with sniper fire. Over 200 were killed, thousands were wounded, many were permanently disabled, and dozens of children were brutalized by bullets. Even the protest was treated as a threat to be eliminated rather than an appeal for humanity to be heeded.

The punitive pattern continued through May 2021 and August 2022, with further Israeli operations killing hundreds more Palestinians, including many children, while Gaza remained stranded, impoverished, and futureless. This was not an accidental escalation. It was a one-sided, deeply imbalanced war. One side owns the prison and writes the news. The other digs graves and waits to be bombed again.

To claim that the war began on October 7, 2023, is not an act of providing a complete picture; it is an act of distortion and falsification. It erases the refugee camps, the occupation, the blockade, the bombings, the crushed protests, and a childhood defined by sirens. It reframes history so that violence appears spontaneous rather than inevitable, detached rather than provoked. October 7 represents a critical node in a continuous historical sequence…one that begins not in 2023, but in 1948, with the foundational injustices that have defined the conflict ever since.

“You cannot bury seventy-five years of suffering under one date and then call it honesty.”


About the author ~

Yumna Zahid Ali is a writer and educator who spends her free time reading, analyzing literature, and exploring cultural and intellectual debates. When she’s not writing for global audiences, she enjoys reflecting on societal issues and using her voice to challenge inequities, especially those affecting women. She also loves diving into history, believing that remembering the past is an act of defiance and a way to hold power accountable.


More Editorial Viewpoints

TAGS: Gaza war historical context, why Gaza conflict did not start October 7, Gaza history since 1948 opinion, Israel Palestine conflict long-term analysis, Gaza blockade and occupation explained
Published on

Trump orders U.S. attack on Venezuela, President Maduro and his wife captured

The U.S. military launched a reported strike against Venezuela early Saturday, according to CNN. President Donald Trump said U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. Venezuela responded by declaring a national emergency.


VENEZUELA - CNN reported at 1:50 a.m. local time Saturday that the United States military had launched an attack on Venezuela at the behest of the President, apparently without Congressional approval.

In a statement posted on his Truth Social account, President Donald Trump wrote that the U.S. initiated a “large scale strike against Venezuela” and “captured its leader, President Nicolas Maduro,” along with his wife.

Here is the statement from Truth Social in full:

“The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country.

“This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement. Details to follow. There will be a News Conference today at 11 A.M., at Mar-a-Lago. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

Venezuela went into a state of national emergency and asked for help from allies and neighboring countries to repel what it described as an American invasion.

Long-serving President Nicolas Maduro was captured by U.S. special forces and flown out of the country. The invasion follows months of accusations from the Trump administration, which has pressured Maduro over allegations of drug running and questions surrounding the legitimacy of his administration.

The United States has not undertaken such a direct intervention in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama to depose military leader Manuel Noriega over similar allegations.

The White House announced that the president would issue a statement to the press later this morning at 11 a.m. Eastern time.

Below are some of the initial reactions from X.





Published on

Viewpoint |
Women in authority roles exposes male mediocrity

Who keeps moving the finish line whenever a woman take over a leadership position in work or politics?


by Yumna Zahid Ali, Guest Commentator

Who told you leadership has a gender? Who decided authority sounds masculine and strength must wear a man’s face? Who keeps moving the finish line every time a woman reaches it? And why, in the 21st century, are we still pretending this debate isn’t already settled? Because, honestly, this argument itself is tired, dusty, and intellectually embarrassing. The idea that women are “born followers” is not an opinion. It is a confession. Yes! A confession of insecurity, nostalgia for unearned authority, and fear that their own mediocrity will be exposed.

oursentinel.com viewpoint
So, let me be clear, once and for all: Women are leaders. Not potential leaders. Not emerging leaders. Not leaders “despite” being women. Leaders. Period. And anyone still arguing otherwise is not protecting tradition…they’re protecting their own comfortable delusion.

It’s unbelievable how men have been failing upward for centuries, but somehow, women are the risky choice? All of which exposes the double standard: a man forgets half the plan: he’s “visionary.” A woman delivers the entire plan: she’s “bossy.” A man yells: he’s passionate. A woman raises her voice: she needs to “calm down.” A man leads with ego: a strong leader. A woman leads with results: threatening.

Interesting math!

The world loves to say women are “too emotional” to lead, while history is basically a very long, very embarrassing highlight reel of male tantrums with catastrophic consequences. Wars started over bruised egos, chest-thumping pride, and leaders who mistook dominance for wisdom. Empires burned because someone could not handle being challenged, corrected, or told no. Borders were redrawn because a man felt entitled to land, power, or legacy. Millions died not because solutions were unavailable, but because compromise bruised male pride. Entire populations were sacrificed to prove strength, authority, and superiority.

Don't believe me? The evidence is written across the cities themselves: Warsaw, Berlin, Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Grozny, Aleppo, Mariupol, Kyiv, Baghdad, Gaza City, and countless more.

The status quo consumes women’s labor but panics at women’s authority. It adores women as supporting characters, housekeepers, emotional sponges, therapists, sacrificial lambs, anything but decision-makers. Because a woman with power isn’t inspirational; she’s inconvenient.

Women who actually lead are called cold, unlikable, and arrogant. Interesting how male leaders with the same traits are called focused, commanding, and confident. Apparently, likability is a mandatory tax only if you are not supposed to have power.

Say it with me: Women are leaders. Not someday. Not maybe. Not if approved.

They always have been.

The only difference now? They’re done explaining it to people who were never even qualified to question it in the first place.


About the author ~

Yumna Zahid Ali is a writer and educator who spends her free time reading, analyzing literature, and exploring cultural and intellectual debates. When she’s not writing for global audiences, she enjoys reflecting on societal issues and using her voice to challenge inequities, especially those affecting women. She also loves diving into history, believing that remembering the past is an act of defiance and a way to hold power accountable.


More Editorial Viewpoints

TAGS: women have always been leaders, why are men so afraid of women in leadership roles, why are women a risky choice for governing, Women born flollowers, male insecurity challenged
Published on

Viewpoint |
The human cost behind a “ceasefire” that isn’t

oursentinel.com viewpoint
A November 22 airstrike in Gaza raises a hard question: What kind of ceasefire includes civilian deaths? A commentary on the gap between rhetoric and reality.


by Yumna Zahid Ali, Guest Commentator

oursentinel.com viewpoint
On November 22, 2025, Israel carried out another airstrike on Gaza, killing more than twenty people and injuring dozens.

Tell me… what kind of “ceasefire” conducts extrajudicial killings?

Can you define a “ceasefire” for me? Because from here, it looks like a sky full of Israeli jets and the ground littered with Palestinian bodies. Should the orphans be grateful their parents were killed during a “ceasefire” and not a “war”?

The ceasefire appears to be a diplomatic fiction, maintained for political cover while military operations continue. They offer the language of peace with one hand, while the other guides a missile to its target.

In Gaza, what disgusts me is that the imbalance of power is the entire point. It is not a fight for victory, but a demonstration of total domination over a trapped and helpless population. On one side: a state military with sovereign borders, an air force, and international backing. On the other: a non-state actor embedded within, and reliant upon, a civilian population of over two million with no functional sovereignty and no exit.

Headlines highlight geopolitical schemes, while the phrase “civilian casualties” becomes a repetitive, desensitizing afterthought. For many, seeing a headline about civilian deaths now triggers a reflex to scroll further, not to learn more. The “comments section” on reports of civilian casualties is often filled with justification and whataboutism, not grief or solidarity.

Did they sign a peace treaty or a bombing permit? Because you can’t have “partial” peace when it comes to bombs. The November 22 strike is just the latest example of the world watching politics while Gaza bleeds. The international response mechanism to violence in Gaza appears path-dependent, following established political scripts that prioritize process over protection, and dialogue over decisive action to safeguard civilian lives.

Is the peace process just a feel-good term for “waiting for the next ceasefire violation”? Are we waiting for a “perfect solution” while perfectly fine with the current imperfection of dead children? Because my conscience screams that the cost of a false peace is always paid by those who never signed the treaty.


About the author ~

Yumna Zahid Ali is a writer and educator who spends her free time reading, analyzing literature, and exploring cultural and intellectual debates. When she’s not writing for global audiences, she enjoys reflecting on societal issues and using her voice to challenge inequities, especially those affecting women. She also loves diving into history, believing that remembering the past is an act of defiance and a way to hold power accountable.


More Editorial Viewpoints

TAGS: impact of ceasefire violations on civilian populations in Gaza, analysis of Israeli airstrikes during declared ceasefires, humanitarian consequences of disproportionate military power in Gaza, international response to Palestinian civilian casualties 2025, ethical debate over false peace narratives in Middle East conflicts
Published on
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Editor's Choice

Healing through harmony: El Paso veteran Sean Tibbs shares story at annual music retreat

At the 2026 Freedom Sings USA Veterans’ Songwriting Retreat in Heyworth, Marine Corps veteran Sean Tibbs partnered with Nashville songwrit...

More Sentinel Stories