Rise to Peace blog

The past few months have been transformative for Rise to Peace. As we reflect on this period of remarkable growth, we’re excited to share updates about our expanding team and the ambitious projects that will shape our work in the months ahead.

Welcoming Our New Cohort

We’re thrilled to announce that Rise to Peace has welcomed a dynamic new cohort of Fellows and interns, each bringing specialized expertise and fresh perspectives to our mission. This talented group is already driving forward critical research initiatives that address some of the most pressing security and humanitarian challenges of our time.

Leading New Research Initiatives

Jasmine Terry, our Middle East specialist and former State Department member, joins us as a Fellow focusing on the Gaza peace process. Her extensive diplomatic experience and regional expertise will be instrumental as she leads research that examines pathways toward sustainable peace in one of the world’s most complex conflict zones.

We’re equally honoured to welcome Dr. Edward Salo, an accomplished academic and historian, who is spearheading a vital project on safeguarding Ukrainian heritage items and documenting Russian cultural genocide. Working alongside our dedicated intern Kie Jacobson, Dr. Salo’s research will contribute to the critical work of preserving cultural memory and accountability during conflict.

Amber Antony, our OSINT specialist, is developing what will become an essential resource for the field: the Rise to Peace OSINT Best Practices Manual and Guide. This comprehensive publication will share methodologies and standards that can elevate open-source intelligence work across the counter-terror and conflict analysis community.

Building Our Research Community

Beyond these flagship projects, we’ve been fortunate to work with exceptional interns and Fellows including Charlotte Soulé, Giana Romo, and Nimaya Premachandra. Together, this collaborative team has been working diligently on an initiative we’re particularly proud of: the inaugural Rise to Peace Journal.

This journal, we hope, will provide a rare platform for emerging talent in counter-terror and violence prevention research. Through carefully curated article contributions, we’re amplifying new voices and fresh analysis in a field that desperately needs diverse perspectives and innovative thinking.

Looking Ahead

The energy and expertise that our new Fellows and interns bring to Rise to Peace reflects our commitment to fostering the next generation of peacebuilders, researchers, and analysts. Each project underway, from the Gaza peace process research to Ukrainian cultural preservation, from OSINT methodology development to our inaugural journal, represents our conviction that rigorous research and thoughtful analysis are essential tools for building a more peaceful world.

We’re grateful to everyone who has joined us on this journey, and we look forward to sharing the fruits of these collaborations in the coming months. Stay tuned for the release of the Rise to Peace Journal and other ground-breaking work from our team.

Etienne Darcas – Rise to Peace

---

Rise to Peace is committed to countering violent extremism through research, education, and community engagement. Learn more about our work and how you can get involved at https://www.risetopeace.org/

#RiseToPeace #PeaceBuilding #ConflictResolution #CounterTerrorism #Research #Fellowship #MiddleEast #Ukraine #OSINT #EmergingScholars

By Amber Antony, Rise to Peace Fellow

There is such diversity in Africa regarding religion that it almost makes no sense as to why in present day there would be targeted religious atrocities carried out in countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Nigeria, or Uganda. Yet, just this year alone, there was the Kasanga massacre which left 70 innocent townspeople decapitated with machetes, the Komanda Catholic church attack killing at least 38 churchgoers, and the Yelewata massacre, leaving at least 100 people dead. Each one of these attacks, along with countless others, was claimed by the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) under Musu Seka Baluku or jihadist militant groups like ISIS/ISIL. The bloodshed of people in Africa at the hands of extremists is almost immeasurable, and what is incredibly concerning is the fact that those who are residing in predominantly rural Christian villages seem to be at an even greater risk of being attacked or, ultimately, killed. Christianity, Islam, and various traditional African religions are being practiced throughout Africa, yet due to Islamic extremists, and an already fragile environment, it puts each
citizen into a high-risk category of being the next victims of terrorism.

A Brief History of Religion in Africa from Abrahamic Religious Practices to the African Traditional Religious Practices and How Terrorism Has Become Supreme

One of the oldest continents on Earth, Africa is home to a very diverse religious landscape that consists of Christianity, Islam, and African Traditional Religions (ATR) that are specific to the various ethnic groups across the continent. It is important to acknowledge that while there is such diversity, it also largely depends on the region regarding as to whether it has more Abrahamic influence (i.e., Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) or if ATR is more widely practiced in places that have been strong adherent traditionalists in honoring their native spirituality. It is fascinating, however, to observe the vibrant history of Africa and how over a thousand years ago, religions that were previously unknown to an entire land were slowly being introduced, but it has also come at a great cost to the people to be able to even practice religious freedom without some type of violent reprisal from internal forces.

In Central Africa, for example, sits the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo). This is a country where Christianity is widely practiced, so much so that 95.1 percent of the population identified as Christian. It has been a violent and hostile environment for Christians in the DRC even before the 2014 village attacks throughout the DRC which left over 30 people dead, which can be largely attributed to the Islamic State of Ira and Syria-Democratic Republic of the Congo (ISIS-DRC), also known as the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF). However, it is not just Central Africa that is on the receiving end of being targeted by the ADF. Nigeria, located in West Africa, is also home to many Christians, as is Uganda in the Eastern part of Africa—all living under the constant threat of being hunted, killed, and displaced in their own country.

Even beyond Christianity there is a massive religious genocide happening to the African people from both terrorists and the various militant groups. Those that consider themselves to be Muslim, which is second to Christianity in being the most practiced religion in Africa, are oftentimes a target for terrorist and militant groups alike. According to the United Nations in a report for their Human Rights section, it detailed two major attacks taking place in 2024 and 2025 against Fulani Muslims in Central African Republic (CAR); this attack was carried out by Azandé Ani Kpi Gbé (Azanikpigbe). The January 2025 attack in a village in Makoko, situated in the DRC, was perpetrated by ADF. In the Makoko attack, it left 10 people slaughtered, including the local tribal chief, Mwami Kasereka Kasimba.

It is critical to note that in some of these recorded conflicts there are multiple underlying factors aside from religion that contribute to the overall reasoning behind why the attacks were committed in the first place, such as a power play for land and resources. Regardless, the overall sentiment remains that there is such religious persecution that has been actively occurring, that nomadic people from faraway villages to secular urbanites are not safe from sectarian violence.

Overview of Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) and Their Role as Islamic Extremists

The ADF has been in operation for nearly 30 years having been formed in 1995 by Jamil Mukulu. Prior to 1995 and the formation of ADF, Mukulu was already gaining notoriety in Uganda for being a rebel who was carrying out attacks on multiple entities using guerilla warfare tactics against Ugandan government and military officials. However, Mukulu was already on the path to deep radicalization. At some point during the early 1990’s, it is suspected that he had encountered then al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, who had initially left Saudi Arabia in 1991. It is widely thought that Mukulu received training from bin Laden and further indoctrination into Islam, specifically Salafi-jihadism. This would make the most sense as to why and how ADF escalated from being a rebel militant group to full Islamic extremists who would go on to attack and kill hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians all in the name of establishing an Islamic State. Presently, ADF is under the leadership of Musu Seka Baluku who became commander after Mukulu was taken into custody in 2015.

It is critical to point out that even while under Mukulu’s leadership, ADF was able to embrace Islamic jihadism, but under Baluku’s leadership ADF has transformed into almost two factions of pre-ADF and post-ADF, with the post-ADF almost being comparable to a smaller al-Qaeda. ADF has been able to grow in numbers, reach, and if it is even possible, methods to commit even more atrocities. Thus, circling back to the destruction of today where ADF is seemingly uncontrollable, leaving a dire humanitarian situation with little to no recourse.

Room for Terrorism: How Africa Has Been Affected by Jihadism

In many locations in Africa, especially in the DRC, populations are already plagued with sicknesses, poverty, violence, and government instability. Each and every one of these issues have been further compounded by terrorism. Jihadism, however, is not necessarily new to Africa. In both 18th and 19th century West Africa, the Fulani revolution carried out by the Fula jihads, or the Muslim Fulani people, was a precursor of things to come. The Fulani revolution, however, was fuelled by a mixture of revolting against colonialism and a desire for more power, which ultimately led to a betrayal against fellow tribes like the Hausa people. The Sokoto Caliphate would also emerge from this and continue to be a major influence in present day.

However, there are varying levels to jihadism, and not all jihadism is equal. For example, al-Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL have been a heavy influence in furthering the jihadism that is seen throughout Africa today, but this influence adheres to Salafi-jihadism, which is more of a purist ideology that focuses on bringing about a caliphate that is global through the means of violence. The African people have continued to pay the price at the hands of these jihadists, suffering death, displacement, and/or assimilation. The actual cities and villages have been further pushed into disarray and destruction because governments, militaries, and law enforcement officials are unable to effectively combat the constant threat of terrorism. Therefore, Africa continues to sit in a constant state of distress.

Conclusion

There is an ancient beauty to Africa with its multifaceted history, nomadic tribes scattered across its continent, diverse population, and the most incredible wildlife, and yet the constant onslaught of terrorism throughout places like the DRC is destroying peace within its own borders that could otherwise be achievable. Religion does play an integral role in what the people of the DRC or Uganda are facing in terms of being killed because of their Christian faith, and the ADF is largely motivated by their radicalized belief in Islam, but beyond the religious persecution of Christians or the ideology of a group of people, ADF continues to indiscriminately kill and pillage through villages without regard to life at all. An important question to propose is how can one of the oldest places on earth be saved from further turmoil and exploitation at the hands of both foreign and domestic terrorists?

An Opinion Piece for Rise to Peace

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10 at Utah Valley University has become, in death, what he was in life: a mirror reflecting back America’s deepest pathologies. The 31-year-old founder of Turning Point USA, the largest such Conservative youth organisation in the United States, had a complex legacy – now a blank canvas onto which a fractured nation projects its fears, hatreds, and delusions. In the fevered hours and days following his killing, we have witnessed not grief or reflection, but a grotesque scramble to weaponize a corpse for ideological gain. In all this, we must take stock of what is at stake, while also recognising the profound tragedy and loss that such a political murder represents.

The response to Kirk’s murder reveals something profoundly disturbing about our current moment: we have become so thoroughly colonized by political narratives that we cannot even see death clearly anymore. Instead of confronting the horror of political violence, we immediately conscript it into our pre-existing battles. The right sees a martyred patriot; the left struggles between condemnation and barely concealed satisfaction; and in the digital shadows, a carnival of celebration and conspiracy unfolds – Israel, the Mossad, ANTIFA, radical Trans activists and Masonic influences all being named as potential perpetrators of this killing. All of this obscures the most important truth: that both Kirk and his killer were products of the same diseased system, servants of the same chaos they claimed to oppose.

The Rush to Meaning

Within minutes of the news breaking, before Kirks body had even gone cold, the meaning-making machines of American politics roared to life. Conservative media immediately painted Kirk as a “warrior for free speech,” assassinated by the “violent left.” Liberal commentators, while officially condemning the violence, couldn’t resist pointing out the irony of someone who had built a career on inflammatory rhetoric meeting a violent end. The darker corners of social media erupted in barely disguised glee, with memes and jokes proliferating faster than they could be deleted. On both sides, a barely concealed sadism and desire to punish the other came to the fore. We must observe this sadistic tendency that has come to define American politics with the alarm that it deserves, before it turns into outright mutual mutilation.

This immediate narrativization of tragedy is not new, but its speed and intensity have reached pathological levels. We no longer experience events; we experience interpretations of events, pre-packaged and delivered to our respective ideological silos before we can form our own thoughts. Kirk’s death became, in essence, whatever the observer needed it to be. For MAGA faithful, he was Thomas More, executed for refusing to bend the knee to woke orthodoxy. For resistance liberals, he was a cautionary tale about the dangers of stoking division. For the terminally online, he was content—raw material for the next viral post.

A Mormon influencer known as ‘Elder TikTok’, his phone out, livestreamed the chaos in the moments after Kirks murder and promoted his own channel and brand. Within minutes, he was ransacking the abandoned merchandise table, stuffing bloodied MAGA hats and “Big Government Sucks” t-shirts into his bag, contaminating what should have been preserved as evidence for the FBI. His behaviour is not incidental, but is rather the performance of the same dynamic that is now being observed by many media outlets and political figures across the spectrum of American politics – vultures circling a body not yet cold, each wanting a morsel out of it to further their own ends and penalise their perceived opponents.

The reality, when it emerged, was far more banal and infinitely more depressing than any of these narratives that either side suggested. Tyler Robinson, the 19-year-old alleged shooter, was neither a ‘Groyper’ terrorist nor an Antifa super-soldier. He was, investigators discovered, a confused teenager without a manifesto. His online footprint pointed to an incoherent jumble of memes, video game references, and edgy trolling. The bullets that killed Kirk reportedly had phrases etched into them: ‘Notices, bulges, OwO what’s this?’, “Hey fascist! CATCH!” with arrow symbols. “O Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Bella ciao, Ciao, ciao”. “If you read this, you are GAY Lmao”. Robinson’s online history showed engagement with both left and right-wing content, but in essence, he had a somewhat Liberal-oriented view that clashed with that of his Republican, Mormon parents, but transposed over a thick layer of incomprehensibility that has come to define much of Generation Z’s political thought. Latent dissatisfaction and anger, but with no actual ideological prism in which to channel it into something productive and communal, leaving only an act of almost random seeming violence like this one.

In this way, Robinson may be akin to Thomas Crooks, the would-be Trump assassin whose digital footprint was so sparse and contradictory that he became a cipher, readable only through the lens of whoever was doing the reading. These are not ideological warriors but products of our poisoned information ecosystem, young men who are so thoroughly scrambled by the endless churn of online discourse that violence becomes their only legible form of expression.

The Dangerous Dance of Celebration

Among the most disturbing responses to Kirk’s death has been the open celebration in certain online spaces. The hashtag #KirkDown trended briefly before being removed, accumulating thousands of posts ranging from dark humor to explicit approval. Such reactions represent not just a moral failure but a fundamental misunderstanding of how political violence operates in modern America.

As the Muslim intellectual Shahid Bolsen observed in his sobering commentary on the killing, those celebrating Kirk’s death fail to grasp that “they didn’t silence Charlie Kirk. They amplified Charlie Kirk.” This is the cruel paradox of political assassination in the modern age: killing the messenger doesn’t kill the message; it sanctifies it. Kirk alive was a divisive figure whose influence was confined largely to already-converted audiences. Kirk dead becomes an unchallengeable martyr whose every utterance is now wrapped in the protective shroud of tragedy.

The celebration of political violence, regardless of the target, represents a kind of nihilistic surrender to the logic of force. It admits that we have given up on the possibility of political persuasion, of changing minds through argument and evidence. It concedes the field to those who have always argued that politics is simply war by other means. When we cheer for the death of our political opponents, we don’t demonstrate strength; we reveal our own intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

Moreover, this celebration plays directly into the hands of those who would expand the security state and restrict civil liberties. Every tweet celebrating Kirk’s death, every meme mocking his murder, becomes evidence for the necessity of more surveillance, more censorship, more control. The killer didn’t strike a blow against the system; he handed it a gift-wrapped justification for its own expansion. Many disparate community and political organisations, of which Robinson had zero relation to, will now feasibly be targeted by the crack-down. In doing so, Republicans may appeal to their base, but run the risk of over-playing their hand in a big way, as Americans are likely to react poorly to such heavy-handed measures being utilised against disparate civil society groups.

Kirk’s Complex Legacy

While denouncing his murder and those who celebrate it, we cannot allow Kirk’s death to wash clean his life’s work. Charlie Kirk was not merely a conservative activist or a free speech advocate, as his posthumous hagiographers would have us believe. He was an architect of division, a maestro of manufactured outrage who built an empire on the weaponization of young people’s anxieties and resentments. Similarly, those who celebrated his violent death, ostensibly online Liberals and internet-nihilists, have let the cynicism and nihilism of modern American political life infect them to the point where they relish such profoundly anti-social sentiments as the cold-blooded murder of a father and husband, whose crime was being a political provocateur. Now, all of civil society may pay the price for this.

Through Turning Point USA, the largest such youth political organisation in American history, Kirk created a vast network dedicated not to education or genuine political engagement but to the production of viral confrontations and liberal tears. His campus tours were exercises in provocation, designed to generate clips of angry protesters that could be packaged as evidence of left-wing intolerance. His rhetoric consistently pushed boundaries, from calling for the monitoring of Muslim communities to suggesting that Democrats wanted to “replace” white Americans with immigrants.

Kirk understood, perhaps better than most, that in the attention economy, outrage is currency. Every inflammatory statement, every bad-faith argument, every divisive tweet was carefully calibrated to generate maximum engagement. He didn’t seek to convince or persuade so much as to activate and monetize existing grievances. In this sense, he was less a political activist than an entrepreneur of anger, someone who recognized that division could be packaged and sold like any other product.

This is not to justify or minimize his murder, political violence is never acceptable, and Kirk’s tactics, however destructive, were protected speech. But we must be honest about the role he played in creating the very climate of hostility and paranoia that has spilled over into everyday life. Kirk spent years telling young conservatives that they were under existential threat from the left, that their way of life was being deliberately destroyed, that they were engaged in a civilizational struggle with forces that wanted them dead. The tragedy layered over the tragedy of his murder is that someone as immature and reactive as Robinson could take the bait, and in doing so, potentially alter the course of political history in the United States.

The Pornography of Political Violence

There is something obscene about how Kirk’s death has been consumed and metabolized by our digital body politic. Within hours, footage from security cameras was circulating on social media, slowed down, enhanced, set to music. The killing became content, to be analyzed, remixed, and monetized like any other piece of media detritus.

It played out like a snuff film. For many, on September 10 in the hours afterwards, the first thing you saw upon opening your phone was the clip of Kirk being shot – murdered violently, and then replaying again and again on short-format platforms like TikTok and Instagram before meaning could replace the sensation of shock. This saturation of violent, bloodied death into our digital everyday, the mainstream of discourse and online experience, will doubtlessly pour fuel on the fire of this violent phenomena and alienation.

This treatment of political violence as entertainment represents a dangerous new development in American culture. We have become consumers of carnage, treating real human death with the same detachment we might bring to a video game or action movie. The line between representation and reality has become so blurred that many seem genuinely unable to distinguish between the two.

The assassination itself was dissected on podcasts with the clinical fascination usually reserved for true crime stories. Kirk’s final moments were reconstructed in elaborate Twitter threads, complete with diagrams and timeline graphics. The killer’s identity was memed before it was understood, its incoherent rambling transformed into shareable content before anyone had actually grappled with what it revealed about our current moment.

This pornographic consumption of political violence doesn’t just desensitize us; it creates a feedback loop that makes future violence more likely. When assassination becomes content, when murder becomes meme, we create incentive structures for the next confused young man looking to make his mark on the world. The attention, even negative attention, becomes its own reward.

The Systematic Production of Chaos

Perhaps the most important thing to understand about both Kirk and his killer is that they were not anomalies but inevitable products of our current system. Kirk didn’t create the appetite for division; he simply fed it. Robinson didn’t invent political violence; he simply enacted it. Both were expressions of deeper structural forces that we seem unwilling or unable to address.

American society has commodified outrage, weaponized identity, and transformed politics into a blood sport for mass consumption. Social media algorithms actively promote divisive content because it generates engagement. News networks amplify the most extreme voices because they deliver ratings. Politicians embrace apocalyptic rhetoric because it motivates turnout. In such an environment, figures like Kirk don’t just emerge; they flourish. And in such an environment, confused young men like Robinson don’t just spiral; they explode. They don’t need a concrete system of belief to kill, because their anger and visiting target is reason enough to them.

The real tragedy is that Kirk’s death will change nothing. nothing for the better, at least. If anything, it will accelerate the very dynamics that produced both him and his killer. The right will use his martyrdom to justify further restricting legislation. The left will use the warning about right-wing rhetoric while continuing its own escalatory language. The security state will use the assassination to expand its reach. The media will use the controversy to generate content. And somewhere, another confused young person is absorbing all of this, their mind being slowly poisoned by the same toxic brew that produced Robinson.

The Failure of Adult Leadership

What’s perhaps most damning about our current moment is the complete absence of adult leadership capable of breaking these cycles. Where are the voices calling for genuine de-escalation? Where are the leaders willing to acknowledge their own side’s contribution to our poisoned discourse? Where are the adults willing to say that, regardless of our political differences, we must not become monsters in fighting monsters?

Instead, we get the opposite. Politicians who immediately sought to fundraise off Kirk’s death. Media figures who used his assassination to score points against their rivals. Online influencers who transformed a murder into content within hours. The very people who should be providing moral leadership in this moment have instead chosen to pour gasoline on an already raging fire. Too many incentives exist for them not to.

This failure extends beyond individual actors to our institutions themselves. Our churches, universities, civic organizations—all the mediating institutions that once helped channel political passion into productive action—have either collapsed or been conscripted into the culture war. There are no neutral spaces left, no common ground on which to stand and say that political violence is wrong, regardless of the target.

The Path Forward

If there is any hope to be found in this darkness, it lies in recognizing that we still have a choice. We can continue down this path, treating political opponents as existential enemies, celebrating violence against those we disagree with, consuming carnage as entertainment. Or we can recognize that this way leads only to mutual destruction.

This doesn’t mean abandoning our principles or refusing to fight for what we believe in. It doesn’t mean pretending that all political positions are equally valid or that there aren’t real stakes to our political battles. But it does mean recognizing that our political opponents are still human beings, that violence is never an acceptable response to speech, and that a democracy cannot survive when its citizens view each other as enemies to be destroyed rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded.

Kirk’s murder should be a wake-up call, not because he was a martyr or a monster, but because his death represents the logical endpoint of our current trajectory. When we treat politics as war, we shouldn’t be surprised when people start taking casualties. When we tell people that their very existence is under threat, we shouldn’t be shocked when someone decides to strike first.

The most radical thing we can do in this moment is refuse to play our assigned roles in this tragedy. Refuse to celebrate or sanctify. Refuse to use Kirk’s death as ammunition in ongoing culture wars. Refuse to pretend that either Kirk or his killer were anything other than products of division and rage.

Conclusion: Breaking the Cycle

Charlie Kirk is dead, and nothing about that should bring anyone joy. A young man threw away his life to commit an act that will only strengthen the forces he presumably opposed. Families are shattered. A movement has its martyr. The cycle continues, accelerating toward some terrible conclusion we can sense but not yet see.

But perhaps, in this moment of horror, we can finally see clearly what we have become. Perhaps Kirk’s death can serve not as a rallying cry for one side or the other, but as a mirror in which we recognize our own moral deformation. Perhaps we can look at the celebration and the sanctification, the meaning-making and the mythologizing, and recognize it for what it is: a kind of cultural autoimmune disease, our body politic attacking itself in confused fury.

The alternative is too terrible to contemplate. If we cannot break this cycle, if we cannot find a way back from the brink, then Kirk’s assassination will not be an aberration but a preview. The ideological Rorschach test of his murder will give way to more murders, each one interpreted according to the observer’s biases, each one accelerating our descent into chaos. Indeed, the reference to the Italian ‘Years of Lead’ has already begun to take popular precedence in American cultural and political discourse as of late.

Charlie Kirk spent his life making enemies. The greatest tribute we could pay to the gravity of his death would be to refuse to be enemies any longer. Not to agree with what he said or excuse what he did, but to recognize that the path he helped chart leads nowhere good for anyone. His murder is not a victory for anyone; it is a defeat for everyone who believes that democracy can still function, that persuasion is still possible, that we can share a country without sharing a politics.

The carrion birds are already circling, eager to feast on this tragedy. Let us deny them their meal. Let us bury Charlie Kirk with the dignity due to any human being, condemn his killer with the clarity required by justice, and then turn our attention to the much harder task of healing a culture so sick that it produces both martyrs and murderers with such terrifying regularity. The alternative is too dark to contemplate, but increasingly too obvious to ignore, otherwise.

By Etienne Darcas – Rise to Peace Media Lead

In June 2025, the fragile equilibrium of the Middle East was once again disrupted when Israel launched a series of coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz, Esfahan, and Fordow. Citing an imminent threat posed by Iran’s advancing uranium enrichment programme and the potential weaponisation of nuclear material, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu declared the operation a matter of national survival. The strikes, which occurred with limited prior warning, have triggered renewed debate over the legality and strategic prudence of unilateral pre-emptive military action. 

Iran’s Nuclear Programme

The geopolitical landscape surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme has long constituted a central axis of tension in US-Iran relations, reflecting broader regional rivalries and international security concerns. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, bilateral ties have oscillated between sporadic cooperation and entrenched hostility, shaped by mutual distrust and diverging strategic objectives. Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities, coupled with its support for regional proxy groups and its growing influence across the Middle East, has repeatedly intensified these tensions. While Iran has consistently asserted that its nuclear activities are for peaceful purposes, both the US and Israel view its programme with deep suspicion, particularly the latter, which perceives any Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat. This perception had fuelled repeated discussions in Israeli security discourse concerning the potential for pre-emptive strikes, with Prime Minister Netanyahu, as early as February 2025, urging the US to  ‘finish the job’, a request declined at the time. 

Iran, in turn, has cultivated deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear intentions. As a signatory to the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it is bound by an international legal framework for nuclear oversight. However, its compliance has increasingly come under scrutiny. Despite not officially withdrawing from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran has exceeded key enrichment thresholds, prompting threats from European states to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council. It has also constructed fortified underground facilities at sites such as Natanz, designed to withstand conventional attacks and even US bunker-busting munitions. These installations have withstood repeated sabotage attempts, including Israeli cyber and kinetic operations, underscoring Iran’s resilience and strategic resolve. 

Consequently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was tasked with monitoring Iran’s nuclear activities in late 2024 and early 2025. The agency then reported uranium enrichment levels surpassing 60%, nearing weapons-grade thresholds, alongside restricted access to inspection sites. These developments have fuelled suspicions that Iran is maintaining strategic ambiguity, deliberately obscuring the extent of its nuclear progress while avoiding overt violations that would trigger unified international condemnation.

The June 2025 Israeli Strike

On 13 June 2025, Israel initiated a comprehensive military campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities, targeting sites in Isfahan and Natanz. The operation, reportedly named ‘Operation Rising Lion,’ involved a combination of aerial bombardments and cyber operations aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israeli officials claimed that the strikes significantly damaged Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure, setting back its nuclear program by years. However, independent assessments suggest that while the attacks caused substantial damage, they may have only delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions by a few months. In response, Iran condemned the Israeli strikes as violations of its sovereignty and international law. The Iranian government vowed retaliation, stating that ‘all options are on the table.’ Subsequently, Iran launched missile attacks on Israeli military sites and reportedly activated proxy groups in the region to carry out further strikes. Therefore, the US, under President Trump, expressed support for Israel’s action, framing it as a necessary step to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The US military conducted its own strikes on Iranian sites, further escalating tensions. 

The European Union called for restraint and urged all parties to return to diplomatic negotiations to prevent further escalation. European leaders emphasised the importance of dialogue in addressing the nuclear issue and maintaining regional stability. Russia and China, similarly, strongly condemned the Israeli and US actions, labelling them as violations of international law and calling for an immediate ceasefire. Both countries expressed deep concern over the potential for further destabilisation in the Middle East. 

The timing and legality of the strikes have sparked significant debate. Critics argue that the attacks may have violated international law, particularly the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Supporters contend that the strikes were a legitimate exercise of preemptive self-defence, given the perceived imminent threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. The international community remains divided on this issue, highlighting the complexities of applying international legal norms to such situations.

The Theory of Preemptive Self-Defence 

Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the right to self-defence is triggered only in the event of an armed attack and is conditioned on immediate notification to the UN Security Council. This restrictive interpretation, codified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), affirms that any act of self-defence must conform to the principles of necessity and proportionality, permitting only those measures strictly required to repel an ongoing or imminent assault. Within this framework, the expanding discourse around anticipatory, pre-emptive, or preventive self-defence, advanced notably by the United States in recent decades, sits uneasily within established international legal norms. Though not formally recognised under positive international law, the doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence has been invoked in state practice, generating sustained legal controversy due to its susceptibility to subjective threat perception and potential misuse. A crucial distinction persists between anticipatory self-defence, as articulated in the 1837 Caroline case, recognising that forces may be used only in response to an instant threat, leaving no choice of means; and preventive war, which targets hypothetical future dangers and remains broadly prohibited under contemporary international law.

Israel’s approach to self-defence has long operated in the ambiguous space between these doctrines. Its 1967 pre-emptive strike against Egypt, which launched the Six-Day War, was retrospectively presented as a necessary response to an imminent Arab offensive, though its legal justification remains contested. Similarly, the 1975 incursion into Palestinian camps in Lebanon and the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, based on suspicions of potential militarisation, reflect a strategic doctrine rooted in existential pre-emption. In each case, Israel defended its actions as indispensable to neutralising unfolding threats, yet the imminence and necessity of such operations have been the subject of enduring legal and scholarly debate. Therefore, the June 2025 strike on Iranian nuclear sites adheres to this historical logic but raises fresh legal and normative challenges. Although Iran’s nuclear programme has exceeded the constraints of the JCPOA and remains shrouded in opacity, it is officially classified as civilian, with no verifiable evidence of weaponisation. Some legal scholars argue that speculative intelligence and uncertain intent fail to satisfy the threshold of lawful anticipatory self-defence. Nevertheless, Israeli officials contend that Iran’s continued uranium enrichment and the reinforcement of fortified sites such as Natanz constitute a de facto military threat necessitating urgent disruption.

Iran’s strategy of deliberate opacity further complicates any clear legal assessment. By exploiting ambiguity, Tehran maintains strategic deterrence while avoiding definitive legal culpability. Israel’s invocation of this ambiguity to legitimise preemptive strikes, in the absence of a demonstrable armed attack, thus highlights the erosion of consensus surrounding the lawful use of force. Meanwhile, continued US support, either tacit or overt, echoes post-2002 trends that appear to favour a norm of permissibility for preemptive action. This development not only challenges the integrity of the UN Charter system but also raises serious implications for global nuclear governance and the legitimacy of international legal restraint. 

By Charlotte Soulé,  Rise to Peace intern and Masters of International War Studies student at University College Dublin

Terrorism is a man’s game and women’s role in violence is often neglected due to the widely believed societal myth that women are inherently non-violent. Women are seen as life-givers rather than life-takers, and are commonly associated with peace, cooperation, and dialogue rather than terrorism. When women are discussed in the context of terrorism, they are frequently portrayed as passive victims, reinforcing stereotypical notions of female vulnerability. 

However, recent trends in terrorist organizations and attacks stand in stark contrast to such assumptions. Women have not only actively taken part in spreading extremism but have also been directly involved in inflicting violence by performing deadly attacks such as suicide bombings. 

Many women in terrorism have often used their roles as mothers and educators in society as a tool to radicalize others. 

Samira al-Jassem, widely known as Umm al-Mumineen, which translates into “Mother of believers,” is one such example. While living in Sinsin village located in the Diyala province, Jaseem was accused of training at least eighty women to take part in suicide terrorism in support of the al-Qaeda. Twenty-eight of them successfully carried out suicide bombings following her instructions. In a confessional video she later retracted, Jaseem admitted that she helped orchestrate rapes in Diyala. Accordingly, she would later intervene and convert the victims to suicide bombers to escape the cultural shame associated with rape in Iraq. 

Such accounts are not limited to women living in war-torn countries like Iraq. Malika El-Aroud who resided in Belgium, at the heart of Europe, tactfully used modern technology to recruit and persuade others to join the jihadist cause. Using websites and forums such as Minbar SOS, which attracted over 1400 full-time members, and Ansar al-Haqq, she used guilt and glory to push others to join jihadists in the name of protecting the ummah, the global Muslim community. Going further, Aroud posted guidelines on how to make bombs and allowed al-Qaeda affiliates to publish resources through her websites. Her teachings have inspired individuals like Muriel Degauque, considered to be the first European female suicide bomber, to carry out the deadly attack on American troops in Iraq in 2005. Due to her influence and devotion to al-Qaeda, she is also known as “Mother Jihad,” “Black Widow of the Jihad,” and “First Lady of Jihad.”

Jaseem in Iraq and Aroud in Belgium show that women have undoubtedly played a significant role in radicalizing and advancing extremism. Therefore, counterterrorism mechanisms should strip away stereotypical notions of seeing women only as victims and reflect the active role women play in radicalizing the future generation.

Apart from spreading extremism, women have also played an active role in inflicting violence through suicide attacks. Research indicates that female suicide bombers are more successful and lethal with an average of 8.4 victims in comparison to 5.3 for attacks carried out by men. 

This makes female suicide bombers more attractive to terrorist organizations. For instance, female suicide bombers make up over two-thirds of the suicide attackers of Boko Haram in Nigeria, killing over 1200 between 2014-2018. Similarly, 30-40% of the overall suicide attacks that were carried out by Black Tigers, the suicide squad of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka, were composed of women. 

Several reasons can explain this strategic success of using women as suicide bombers. 

Firstly, women are less likely to be suspected as terrorists, allowing them to get better access to targets while avoiding detection. Thenmozhi Rajaratnam, famously known as Dhanu, who was a part of the Black Tigers of LTTE, detonated herself while presenting a flower garland to the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. Her unassuming nature allowed her to steer clear of any suspicions making her attack successful. 

Similarly, the Black Tiger who established her alias by repeatedly visiting the Army hospital while pretending to be pregnant, attacked the Sri Lankan Army Commander in 2006 by hiding the bomb in her stomach. 

This ability of women to pass security checkpoints without raising suspicion, often due to stereotypes of female non-violence and cultural protections, was well used by terrorist organizations.  

As a result, many jihadist suicide bombers have used traditional garments such as abayas and burkas to hide their suicide vests. As men are not allowed to touch women in traditional Muslim societies, such contraptions go undetected. 

Boko Haram’s repeated use of female suicide bombers and exploitation of their traditional clothing to evade detection in attacks in Fotokol, Cameroon, and Borno state in Nigeria is one such example. Bibi Halima who attacked U.S. and Afghan soldiers that were on patrol in Kunar province is another who hid her suicide vest under her burqa. This tactical advantage has also prompted men to disguise themselves as women on several occasions in Afghanistan.

Secondly, female suicide bombings generate more attention and media coverage both locally and internationally, advancing terrorist organizations’ publicity goals. 

Liza Taraki, a Palestinian sociologist, stated that “Suicide attacks are done for effect, and the more dramatic the effect, the stronger the message; thus a potential interest on the part of some groups in recruiting women.”

According to research conducted by Mia Bloom, a suicide attack carried out by a woman produces eight times more media coverage and articles than a male counterpart. Given the ever-changing landscape of conflict and the expanding digital sphere in which terrorist organizations are competing for visibility, the use of women as suicide bombers becomes a strategic choice.

The societal myth that promotes women to be inherently non-violent causes the shock factor of female suicide bombers to be amplified. Consequently, the psychological effects of female suicide bombers go beyond the immediate victims of the attack and reach a much larger audience. This allows the cause of the terrorist groups to gain publicity and even sympathy. 

The presence of a female suicide bomber is startling in itself, but even more so when she is young, attractive, and seemingly accomplished.

Sana’a Mehaidli, a 17-year-old Christian from Lebanon, carried out a suicide attack against the Israeli occupation in 1985. The following year, Norma Abi Hassan, a 29-year-old Christian, drove a car filled with explosives to a checkpoint of the Israeli-backed South Lebanon Army militia. Similarly, Wafa Idris, the first Palestinian female suicide bomber and a 27-year-old ambulance driver for the Red Crescent Society, detonated herself on a crowded street in Jerusalem. These cases illustrate how young, conventionally attractive women, those who embodied the “girl next door” image, were deliberately chosen as suicide bombers. Their involvement not only intensified the psychological impact of the attacks but also generated significant public and media attention.

Hence, it is clear that women, transcending geographical and religious boundaries, have taken an active part in conducting suicide bombings and inflicting terror and violence. Their involvement has provided strategic benefits to many terrorist organizations allowing successful attacks and amplified media attention. 

The question remains as to why women would choose to turn their bodies into weapons. Despite the common misconception, women who engage in suicide terrorism are not all passive and vulnerable victims. While there are many accounts where rape victims join the LTTE as suicide bombers or women are coerced into carrying out attacks by Boko Haram, studies show that many women share similar motivations for becoming suicide bombers as their male counterparts. 

Mia Bloom categorized these motivations under what she calls the “R Theory,” identifying redemption, revenge, respect, and relationships as common reasons cited by women who become suicide bombers.

Consequently, there is no one-size-fits-all profile for female suicide bombers. They vary widely in background, religion, geography, and pathways to radicalization. Many have also led seemingly stable lives and careers, challenging the stereotype that only marginalized women engage in such acts.

Yet despite these nuances, a common thread persists: the societal status of women often remains unchanged—or even worsens. While female suicide bombers are sometimes romanticized as heroes or martyrs, their actions have not led to meaningful emancipation. Women continue to be largely excluded from leadership roles within terrorist organizations, and many face disempowerment after carrying out attacks or failing to do so. Rather than receiving the recognition they may have anticipated, they are frequently ostracized for defying gender norms and failing to adhere to traditional roles.

Therefore, it is imperative that the continuous participation of women as suicide bombers and their targeted recruitment by terrorist organizations for strategic advantage be reflected in counterterrorism measures. Security protocols embedded with stereotypical gender roles should be updated. We must recognize that women are fully capable of playing operational roles within terrorist organizations—as recruiters, planners, intelligence gatherers, and suicide bombers. Ignoring this reality creates dangerous blind spots in both prevention and response efforts.

Furthermore, counterterrorism strategies must incorporate gender-sensitive approaches that take into account the specific psychological, social, and cultural drivers influencing women. Tailored interventions are more likely to be effective in deterring female recruitment and supporting rehabilitation for those who have disengaged from violent extremism.

Finally, counterterrorism efforts must actively disrupt the narratives that terrorist organizations use to recruit women. Groups often portray female participation as a path to empowerment, heroism, or redemption—especially in contexts where women feel socially or politically marginalized. However, the reality is that many women are excluded from leadership roles, used for tactical purposes, and abandoned or shunned afterward. Strategic counter-narratives that expose this exploitation and emphasize the long-term disempowerment many women experience can be powerful tools in undermining terrorist propaganda and preventing further recruitment.

By Nimaya Premachandra, Research Fellow and Public Relations Lead, Rise to Peace