This is wrong from both point of views IMO, and I will elaborate.
Going against the chain of commands will ultimatley become a civil war between both sides, one is the people following the president, and two are the
people who appose him.
Attacking Iran would be a mistake, but is the mistake worth risking?
No one knows the agendas of either side, Iran could be giving weapons to terrorists, or they might not be. NO EVIDENCE!
So basically attacking Iran would go against the moral ethics of the United States, if they have evidence of Iran backing up insurgents then let them
present itin a world court, infront of every nation. Or better yet. why not just debate with the Iranian leader like he is asking?
Presumption of innocence is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern nations. It states that no person shall be considered
guilty until finally convicted by a court. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to convince the court that the accused is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt. In principle, the defense does not have to 'prove' anything. However, the defense may present evidence tending to show
that there is a doubt as to the guilt of the accused.