1. Show your identity - Tell your name, school, and country

2. Stay polite – Attack ideas, not the person.

3. Keep it clear – Make your points short and easy to follow.

4. Use facts – Back up what you say with examples or evidence.

5. Stay calm – Even if challenged, respond with composure.

I am Minsung Park, a second-year student at Joongsan High School in South Korea.

I agree with the points mentioned above. Those who support military action argue that Iran’s nuclear development and military activities pose a significant threat to global security and the interests of the United States and its allies. Therefore, they believe proactive measures are necessary to prevent further escalation. Furthermore, they claim that such actions could ultimately lead to long-term stability in the Middle East by deterring terrorism and neutralizing potential threats before they materialize.

My name is Kyungchan Go, and I would like to share my perspective on the conflict between Iran and the United States.

I understand that war is a serious and complex matter that brings significant consequences for nations and individuals alike. However, from my point of view, there are situations in which strong action, including military conflict, may be considered necessary. Supporters of such actions often argue that they are intended to protect national security, uphold international order, or respond to ongoing threats that cannot be resolved through diplomacy alone.

In the case of tensions between Iran and the United States, some believe that a firm stance could deter further escalation or prevent larger instability in the region. They argue that showing strength can sometimes lead to quicker resolutions or force negotiations under more balanced conditions.

At the same time, I recognize that war always involves human cost, economic damage, and long-term consequences that are difficult to predict. For this reason, even those who support military action should carefully consider the risks and hope for strategies that minimize harm and prioritize stability in the long run.

In conclusion, while I express support for decisive action in certain circumstances, I also believe it is important to approach such issues with caution, responsibility, and awareness of their global impact.

Hello my name is Gain from Joongsan high school.An armed conflict between the United States and Iran would be a grave mistake with far-reaching consequences. War would not only lead to the loss of countless innocent lives, but also destabilize an already fragile region. History has shown that military interventions in the Middle East often create long-term instability rather than lasting peace. Instead of resolving tensions, war could deepen mistrust, fuel extremism, and trigger wider conflicts involving other nations.

Moreover, the economic impact would be severe on a global scale. Disruptions in oil supply could harm economies worldwide, increasing prices and creating hardship for ordinary people. The financial cost of war itself would also place a heavy burden on taxpayers, diverting resources away from critical needs such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

Diplomacy, not violence, offers a more sustainable path forward. Through dialogue, negotiation, and international cooperation, both countries can address their differences without resorting to destruction. Choosing peace over war is not a sign of weakness, but a commitment to humanity, stability, and long-term global security.

I am in favor of the US-Iran war. Relays bring a lot of attention in the short term, but ultimately lead to good results. In the context of the United States, the ostensible reason for the war was the development of nuclear weapons. But I don't think that's the reason. The current US moves are especially aimed at keeping China in check. China is a dangerous country working for its rivals. Even Venezuela, a member of the El tribe, has a relationship with China and is a Chinese territory. They share Mexico's attitude and are happy to provide China with a lot of oil and share it with their anti-American rivals. So I am in favor of this war

Padlet 아이콘 변경

T2637김선경

•17일

아래 더하기 버튼을 클릭하여 토론 주제에 대한 답변을 게시하세요.

My name is Taejun Lim. I'm from south korea and third grades of Jungsan high school.Before speaking, I think we must first consider the confrontation structure between South Korea and North Korea. North Korea is currently South Korea's main enemy as it maintains close relations with China, Russia, and Iran. Currently, the United States is simultaneously keeping China and Russia in check. No matter how strong the United States is, it is currently difficult to keep two superpowers in check at the same time, and it is true that the United States' global hegemony is not at the same level as before. But what if Iran had nuclear weapons? This means that the focus on the United States will increase, and it will result in the dispersion of U.S. military strategic assets. However, if the United States invades Iran and takes action in advance, the United States will be able to focus on containing China and Russia, which will also have an advantage in the U.S. military's suppression of North Korea. Since this is a very important matter for Korea's security, I believe that the United States' invasion of Iran is justified.

The biggest reason the U.S. invaded Iran is that it has not given up on its nuclear development.But can this reason be justified?Ukraine signed security treaties with Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom to give up its nuclear weapons. However, since then, Ukraine has been invaded by Russia and has not received help from the international community.When this precedent remains, which countries can accept the demand for denuclearization?No matter how the results have affected the international community, whether positive or negative, the U.S. invasion of Iran under the pretext of Iran's refusal to denuclearize cannot be justified.

My name is Seongbeen Lee.I’m a second-year student at Joongsan Highschool in South Korea.

I strongly oppose the U.S invasion of Iran.

While modern warfare claims to use “precision strikes”, engagements in densely populated areas inevitably lead to large-scale civilian casualties.

While a military invasion aims to stop Iran’s nuclear program, it risks triggering a much larger global conflict. It could also trigger a sharp increase in inflation. In the past, the U.S invaded Iraq under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction, but no such weapons were ever found. Similarly, it is unjustifiable to attack Iran based on the claim of removing potential threats without concrete evidence of nuclear weapons.

My name is Sehee Park and I am a Korean. I am a second grader at Jungsan High School.

Direct U.S. involvement in the war between Iran and Israel could have bad consequences for both world peace and U.S. interests, so it should be opposed.

First, we must abide by international rules and respect the rights of other countries. Attacking first without the permission of the United Nations is against international law. This is like repeating the mistakes of attacking without any apparent reason, like the 2003 Iraq War, that caused the Middle East to lose international trust and cause further chaos. Attacking another country recklessly can make the whole world a dangerous place where only the logic of power runs.

Second, it causes tremendous damage to all of our wallets and the global economy. If the Strait of Hormuz, the road through which oil passes, is blocked by war, gas prices will rise beyond their control. There will be a greater economic disaster than during the oil shock of the 1970s, when goods became so expensive that the economy was paralyzed, which will destroy the ordinary lives of people around the world.

Finally, even after sacrificing a lot of money and people, like the wars in Afghanistan in the past, you may end up in a swamp of endless wars where you can't make peace. Iran has a tough land and strong people's unity, so suppressing it with the military is not a solution. Therefore, rather than participating in dangerous wars, the United States should find a peaceful way to solve problems through dialogue.

My name is Minhyuk, a third-year student at Joongsan High School in South Korea.

I am against the idea that a U.S. invasion of Iran can be justified.

First, under the United Nations Charter, the use of force is only allowed for self-defense or with international approval. Without a direct attack, such an invasion would violate international law.

Second, the Iraq War shows that military action without clear evidence can lead to global criticism and loss of trust.

Finally, war can increase oil prices and harm the global economy, while failing to solve the root causes of conflict.

For these reasons, I believe this invasion cannot be justified. Thank you.

My name is yiseul kim i'm from jungsanhighschool. oppose war in Iran because violence often creates more problems than it solves. Military conflict can lead to the loss of innocent lives and long-lasting suffering for civilians. It also damages infrastructure, making it harder for people to access basic needs like food, water, and healthcare. War can increase political instability and create deeper tensions between countries. In many cases, peaceful dialogue and diplomacy are more effective ways to resolve conflicts. Choosing war risks repeating past mistakes instead of working toward long-term peace and understanding.I further oppose war in Iran because its consequences can last for generations, affecting not only those directly involved but also future populations. Children who grow up in war zones often face interrupted education, trauma, and limited opportunities, which can shape their entire lives. Environmental damage caused by warfare, such as pollution and destruction of natural resources, can also have long-term effects on health and sustainability. Moreover, war can weaken international cooperation, making it harder for countries to work together on global issues like climate change and economic stability. History has shown that conflicts fueled by force rarely bring true resolution, and instead often lead to cycles of retaliation. By prioritizing diplomacy, mutual understanding, and respect for international law, nations have a better chance of achieving lasting peace. For these reasons, I strongly believe that opposing war is a more responsible and humane choice.I also think that war can damage a country’s cultural heritage and historical sites, which are valuable not only to that nation but to the entire world. Once these are destroyed, they can never be fully restored. In addition, war often leads to increased fear, hatred, and misunderstanding between different groups of people, making reconciliation much more difficult in the future. It can also limit freedom and human rights, as governments may impose strict controls during times of conflict. Furthermore, the psychological impact on soldiers and civilians alike can be severe, leading to long-term mental health issues such as trauma and anxiety. These effects do not end when the war is over, but continue to influence societies for many years. Instead of choosing violence, investing in education, communication, and international cooperation can create more meaningful and lasting solutions. In the long run, peace not only saves lives but also helps build a more just and stable global society. For all these reasons, I firmly stand against war and support peaceful approaches to resolving conflicts.

I also think that war can damage a country’s cultural heritage and historical sites, which are valuable not only to that nation but to the entire world. Once these are destroyed, they can never be fully restored. In addition, war often leads to increased fear, hatred, and misunderstanding between different groups of people, making reconciliation much more difficult in the future. It can also limit freedom and human rights, as governments may impose strict controls during times of conflict. Furthermore, the psychological impact on soldiers and civilians alike can be severe, leading to long-term mental health issues such as trauma and anxiety. These effects do not end when the war is over, but continue to influence societies for many years. Instead of choosing violence, investing in education, communication, and international cooperation can create more meaningful and lasting solutions. In the long run, peace not only saves lives but also helps build a more just and stable global society. For all these reasons, I firmly stand against war and support peaceful approaches to resolving conflicts.

Hello i'm iankang from jungsanhighschool. I oppose a United States invasion of Iran. War would likely cause severe civilian suffering and destabilize the region further. Military intervention often escalates conflicts rather than resolving their root causes. Diplomatic efforts and negotiations offer a more sustainable path to reducing tensions. Working with the international community can help achieve a peaceful solution. Therefore, dialogue should be prioritized over the use of force.

My name is Jawon Choi from Jungsan high school, Korea. In my opinion, the U.S. invasion of Iran cannot be justified. Because I believe that no matter how severe human rights violations within Iran or the resulting global instability in the Middle East intensifies, war is an extreme act that infringes upon the sovereignty of other nations, and therefore, accountability must inevitably follow. In addition, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz caused by the Iran-U.S. war resulted in a severe international energy crisis that surpassed the oil crisis of the 1970s. Consequently, both developing and developed countries faced significant difficulties in economic development and trade due to rising oil prices. And the damage caused by rising oil prices also affected the United States. In late April 2026, the average oil price in the U.S. reached a four-year high of $4.18 to $4.23 per gallon. The U.S. invasion of Iran caused serious problems not only for Iran but for the entire world, including the United States.

My name is Diana and I don't think the U.S. invasion of Iran is justified.There are criticisms that US military intervention violates Iran's sovereignty and is difficult to justify under international law.In particular, the preemptive use of force in the absence of a clear attack is difficult to see as a legitimate self-defense.These interventions are also likely to deepen tensions in the Middle East and increase civilian damage.Therefore, it is convincing that even if the US action is under the pretext of security, it is difficult to be recognized by the international community.

My name is Haeum Jung.I'm from Korea and second grade of Jungsan highscool.

I strongly argue that a military invasion of Iran cannot be justified because it violates international law and would lead to a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. First, according to the UN Charter, national sovereignty must be respected, and unilateral military action without international consensus undermines global peace. History shows that such interventions often create power vacuums and long-term instability rather than solving problems. Furthermore, the human cost would be devastating, resulting in the displacement of millions of innocent civilians and the destruction of essential infrastructure. From an economic perspective, a conflict in this sensitive region would also cause global energy prices to skyrocket, hurting the most vulnerable people worldwide. Therefore, we must prioritize diplomatic dialogue and peaceful cooperation over the destructive use of force.