I survived war in Iran. These US bombs feel eerily familiar.
It's easy to speak of war in the passive voice. Collateral damage. Strategic necessity. Regime change. But there are millions like me – in Iran, Gaza, Lebanon – whose lives are not theoretical.
I learned what a bomb sounds like before I learned how to write my own name.
We lived in Tehran during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, in a house with blackout curtains and tape on the windows. My brother and I slept on the floor beside our parents and grandparents during the air strikes, our little bodies still and quiet. I remember the way the entire house rattled from the distant blasts and the anxiety that never fully left us, even after we eventually fled.
On one of the last commercial flights out of Tehran, I watched through the window as anti-aircraft missiles flew by and feared they would hit us, despite my mother's reassurances. Later, in Tukey, a New Year's firework display sent my brother and me into hysterics. We thought Iraq's then-leader Saddam Hussein had followed us to Istanbul.
That war, and our escape from it, shaped every part of my childhood. It also makes me painfully attuned to the bombs raining down on Iran now – not just because they're familiar, but because the military actions are again being trumpeted by people with no understanding of what war actually means.
Now, following Israeli strikes throughout the country, the United States has joined with a June 21 salvo of terrifying airpower. And Iran is once again being spoken of not as a nation with 92 million human beings but as a problem to be solved. Another headline. Another potential target. The rhetoric from some American lawmakers, echoing past wars, feels eerily recycled: Iran is dangerous, on the verge of nuclear capability – a threat to be neutralized.
Nuclear weapons? Does this sound familiar?
We've heard all of this before.
We heard it in 2003, when intelligence was fabricated to support a war plan. When 'weapons of mass destruction' became the phrase that legitimized the invasion of Iraq – a lie that ended a million lives and destabilized an entire region.
That war didn't create peace, it created the conditions that birthed the Islamic State terrorist organization, mass migration and decades of pain still reverberating across the Middle East.
What's worse today isn't just the repetition, but the apathy. It's also the ease with which lawmakers throw around apocalyptic warnings of Iranian nukes – warnings not rooted in evidence but in direct contradiction to the assessments of international nuclear watchdogs and our own national intelligence.
Meanwhile, the editorial pages of Israeli publications are casually debating the 'partition' of Iran, as if dividing a 5,000-year-old nation is a thought experiment in a graduate school seminar.
Opinion: Why did US bomb Iran? In Trump's vibes war, it's impossible to trust anyone.
This kind of violence doesn't happen in theory. It happens in living rooms. In kitchens. In schoolyards and in hospitals.
And it doesn't begin with bombs. It begins with words. Words that dehumanize entire nations.
I grew up in the shadow of that dehumanization, and I live today in the West as a result of it. Like so many other refugees and immigrants – Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemenis – my family is here because we were displaced.
We bear the consequences of decisions made in rooms far away from the blast radius. And we are asked, repeatedly, to be grateful for that displacement. To assimilate, to silence our pain and to watch as the cycle repeats again and again.
War spurs mass migration, suffering of people who aren't at fault
It's not lost on us that those who clamor for war are often the first to decry the presence of immigrants like me. But there is no separating the two.
The same people who express their gratitude to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and rail against immigration are often the ones urging us to drop bombs, as if there is no cause and effect between the two. We are here because you were there.
Take our poll: Iran strikes US base after Trump bombing. Are you concerned about war? Tell us. | Opinion Forum
Iran is not Iraq. Nor is it Syria or Afghanistan. It is larger, more populous, more geopolitically complex – but no less human. Its people are already suffering, trapped between a repressive regime at home and suffocating sanctions from abroad. What do we imagine will be left if we invade it?
War does not just destroy regimes or human lives, it leads to greater oppression, poverty, gender-based violence, human trafficking, child abuse, family separation and more. We in the West have learned this before. Or we should have.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
It's easy to speak of war in the passive voice. Collateral damage. Strategic necessity. Regime change. But I ask those who write or legislate in those terms to consider: What is the name of the child under the blackout curtain? Who is she, and what might she have become if you had let her live in peace?
I was that child once. And I promise you, there are millions more like me – in Gaza, in Iran, in Lebanon – whose lives are not theoretical.
They are real. They are watching. And they deserve to live in peace.
Yasmin Z. Vafa is an award-winning human rights attorney and advocate for young women and girls.
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Business Insider
27 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump is testing how far presidential immunity will go to save him millions
A federal appeals court will weigh a question important to Donald Trump on Tuesday morning: Can presidential immunity save him $83.3 million? In January 2024, a jury ordered Trump to pay the millions in defamation damages for his many attacks on the writer E. Jean Carroll, where he disparaged her as a liar and insulted her appearance after she accused him of sexually assaulting him in the 1990s at a Bergdorf Goodman department store near Trump Tower in Manhattan. According to a Forbes estimate, Trump's net worth is $5.2 billion. It's boomed since he won the 2024 presidential election thanks to his ownership of Truth Social and numerous crypto investments. The Carroll verdict is about 1.6% of his estimated worth. Before the trial, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump had forfeited the right to argue he had presidential immunity in the civil case because he waited too long to bring it up. But last year, the Supreme Court adopted a more robust conception of presidential immunity — one that protects presidents from criminal cases. That broader, more sweeping view should also cover Trump in the Carroll case and wipe away the massive jury award, the president's lawyers now argue. "Presidential immunity — even if it could be waived at all, which is not the case — cannot be inadvertently forfeited," Trump's lawyers argued in their appeal brief for the Carroll case. Carroll took Trump to trial twice Carroll's first defamation lawsuit against Trump, filed in 2020, was stalled for years in courts in New York and Washington, DC, because it concerned comments Trump made while he was still president. The Justice Department argued at the time that Trump was immune from the lawsuit because of the Westfall Act, a law that protects government employees from legal action for statements they make as part of their job. After completing his first term in office, Trump continued to attack Carroll on social media and at campaign rallies. Carroll filed a second lawsuit against Trump in November 2022, alleging defamation as well as sexual abuse. That second lawsuit, unencumbered by questions of presidential immunity, went to trial in 2023 in Manhattan federal court. In May of that year, the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay Carroll $5 million. After the trial for the second lawsuit was over, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals cleared the way for a second trial over the first lawsuit, agreeing with a lower court that Trump had waived the right to argue that he had presidential immunity because he brought it up too late. The Justice Department — then under the Biden administration — also dropped its position that Trump's statements about Carroll were part of his presidential duties, writing in a court filing that "sexual assault was obviously not job-related." Carroll's first lawsuit finally went to trial in January of 2024. After not showing up to the first trial, Trump briefly testified in the second. Because another jury had already found Trump liable for defamation for calling Carroll a liar over her sexual abuse claims, the jury in the second trial only had to decide how much Trump would pay in additional damages for statements he made while he was president, as well as other insults he had hurled at Carroll since the conclusion of the first trial. They settled for $65 million in punitive damages, $7.3 million to compensate Carroll, and $11 million to help repair her reputation — a total of $83.3 million. Trump invoked the Supreme Court's recent immunity decision Trump's appeal brief calls the case "a miscarriage of justice" and says the Second Circuit got it wrong. "Presidential immunity shields from liability President Trump's public statements issued in his official capacity through official White House channels," they wrote in a brief. Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan argued in her own brief that presidential immunity — like all other forms of immunity in the American legal system — can be waived. "If there were ever a case where immunity does not shield a President's speech, this one is it," she wrote. "Donald Trump was not speaking here about a governmental policy or a function of his responsibilities as President. He was defaming Carroll because of her revelation that many years before he assumed office, he sexually assaulted her." John Sauer, who argued the immunity case on Trump's behalf before the Supreme Court, also filed appeal briefs in the Carroll case. In September, Sauer urged the Second Circuit in an oral argument to toss the jury verdict against Trump in the first Carroll trial, in part because it featured testimony from other women who said Trump sexually abused them. The court upheld that verdict earlier this month. Sauer is now serving as the Justice Department's solicitor general in the second Trump administration. And on Wednesday, the court denied a motion from the Justice Department to take over Trump's defense. Court filings indicate Justin D. Smith, a Missouri-based attorney at Sauer's former law firm, will argue against Kaplan at Tuesday's hearing. Smith didn't respond to a request for comment from Business Insider. In two of Trump's other high-profile appeals, Trump has retained the Big Law firm Sullivan & Cromwell. They're fighting a half-billion-dollar civil fraud judgment against the Trump Organization as well as a Manhattan jury verdict that found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business documents as part of the Stormy Daniels hush-money scandal. In the criminal case, Sullivan & Cromwell — which argued their appeal before the Second Circuit earlier this month — also leans heavily on the Supreme Court's immunity decision. In that case, Trump's lawyers said additional arguments should be held in federal courts, not state courts, which would make future decisions easier to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.


CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
Oil is falling so much it's now cheaper than it was before the Iran-Israel conflict
Oil prices fell sharply Tuesday, returning to levels last seen before the Iran-Israel conflict, as investors cheered news of a ceasefire, albeit fragile, between the two countries. Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, was trading 4.3% lower on the day early Tuesday morning ET at $68.44 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate crude, the US oil benchmark, was also trading 4.3% down at $65.55 a barrel. These levels are broadly comparable to the closing prices before Israel launched an unprecedented attack on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 13. That assault triggered a 12-day conflict that has led both sides to fire a barrage of missiles into the other's territory, as well as direct military involvement by Israel's biggest ally, the United States. US President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire late Monday ET, though hours later Israel accused Iran of violating the terms and vowed to launch fresh strikes on Tehran. Iran denied the allegations. US stock futures were in the green. The Dow was on track to open 262 points, or 0.6%, higher. S&P 500 futures were 0.7% higher, while futures in the tech-heavy Nasdaq rose 1%. In Asia, stock indexes closed the day higher. Hong Kong's Hang Seng finished up 2% and mainland China's Shanghai Composite was 1.2% higher on the day. Meanwhile, in Europe, the benchmark STOXX Europe 600 index, which includes UK-listed companies, was trading 1.2% up by early morning ET. 'We've seen a pretty remarkable de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East,' analysts at Deutsche Bank wrote in a note Tuesday. 'The past 12 days look set to join the long list of geopolitical shocks that proved temporarily disruptive but had little lasting effect on markets.' However, with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifying before Congress Tuesday and tensions still running high, markets could turn on a dime. 'Markets breathed a sigh of relief following Trump's ceasefire declaration, but the celebration could be short-lived,' said Lukman Otunuga, senior market analyst at FXTM, in a note to investors. 'If tensions flare again or the ceasefire is violated, we could see a swift return to risk aversion – boosting safe havens like gold and pressuring global equities.' The ceasefire makes it less likely that global oil supplies will be disrupted. Many investors have been worried that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway ferrying around a quarter of the world's oil supply, according to figures from the International Energy Agency. That scenario – which would likely send oil prices skyward – now appears less of a threat. Goldman Sachs has estimated that oil prices could blow past $100 a barrel if there is an 'extended disruption' to the strait. Assuming the ceasefire holds, Brent crude could hover 'near the $70 per barrel level while clarity on a US-Iran deal emerges,' said Mukesh Sahdev, global head of commodity markets at Rystad Energy, a consultancy, Tuesday. 'The prospect of severe economic fallout from a potential blockade (of the strait) likely motivated both sides to agree to the ceasefire, if it is indeed genuine,' he wrote in a note. While oil prices shot up after the Iran-Israel conflict began – touching a five-month high last week – they tanked Monday after Iran launched targeted and limited missile strikes on US bases in Qatar. US crude tumbled 7.2% to settle at $68.51 a barrel, the biggest one-day drop since early April and one of its worst days over the past three years. Brent closed at $71.48 a barrel, down 7.2%, the steepest decline since August 2022 . Matt Egan contributed reporting.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
South Korea May Delay US Trade Deal Over Threats To Its China-Based Chipmakers
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. South Korea is preparing to confront U.S. officials over potential restrictions on chipmakers operating in China. What Happened: Ahead of the third round of tariff talks in Washington this week, South Korean Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo said he will raise industry concerns over possible U.S. curbs that could hurt Korean semiconductor firms in China, reported Reuters. 'I will pass on the concerns among those in the industry and take utmost care,' Yeo told reporters before departing for Washington on Sunday. Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — you can become an investor for $0.80 per share today. Peter Thiel turned $1,700 into $5 billion—now accredited investors are eyeing this software company with similar breakout potential. Learn how you can invest with $1,000 at just $0.30/share. The talks were originally expected to conclude with a trade agreement by July 8, but Yeo indicated that the deadline may slip due to political and economic uncertainties in the U.S., the report added. Why It's Important: Seoul is currently subject to a 10% blanket tariff, with an additional 25% country-specific duty temporarily suspended for 90 days. Yeo, who was appointed this month by newly elected President Lee Jae Myung, also plans to meet officials at the White House and U.S. Congress to discuss multiple trade issues, including a U.S. request for South Korea to relax its restrictions on American beef imports. South Korean chipmakers, including Samsung Electronics Co. (OTC:SSNLF) and SK Hynix, rely heavily on Chinese operations and new U.S. policies could upend their supply chains. Earlier this month, it was reported SK Hynix has secured custom high-bandwidth memory (HBM) orders from Nvidia Corp (NASDAQ:NVDA), Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) and Broadcom Inc. (NASDAQ:AVGO). Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (NYSE:TSM) will produce the logic dies for SK Hynix's custom HBM chips. The first offering, the seventh-generation HBM4E, is expected to launch in the second half of 2026. Last year, it was reported that Chinese tech firms, including Huawei Technologies Co and Baidu Inc (NASDAQ:BIDU), were stockpiling HBM semiconductors from Samsung ahead of potential U.S. export restrictions. Read Next: Invest early in CancerVax's breakthrough tech aiming to disrupt a $231B market. Back a bold new approach to cancer treatment with high-growth potential. Arrived Home's Private Credit Fund's has historically paid an annualized dividend yield of 8.1%*, which provides access to a pool of short-term loans backed by residential real estate with just a $100 minimum. Photo courtesy: Shutterstock This article South Korea May Delay US Trade Deal Over Threats To Its China-Based Chipmakers originally appeared on Sign in to access your portfolio