The recent strikes by Israel and the United States on Iran have raised serious concerns. The attacks reportedly took place even as diplomatic engagement was said to be continuing.
Senior Iranian figures, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were killed in the strikes, which also hit civilian areas. One such target was a girls’ school in southern Iran, where, according to Iranian media, about 180 children under the age of 12 killed. The United Nations has called for an independent investigation into the incident. UNESCO has described attacks on schools as grave violations of humanitarian law.
Civilian Sites Caught in the Strikes
Hospitals and medical facilities were also affected. Reports from health authorities and humanitarian organisations say several hospitals and clinics across Iran were damaged during the bombardment. Gandhi Hospital in Tehran was badly damaged and had to be evacuated after nearby explosions. Doctors and nurses were forced to move patients, including newborn babies, in chaotic circumstances. Officials of the World Health Organization expressed deep concern and reminded all sides that medical facilities must be protected during conflict.
In another tragic incident, an air attack hit a sports hall in Fars province in southern Iran, killing 20 female volleyball players. Local reports say the young athletes were training in a simple gymnasium when the strike took place.
These incidents show how ordinary civilian life has been caught up in the violence. Civilian deaths in any conflict weaken the moral basis of military action.
Changing Explanations for the Attack
Public explanations from the United States about the objective of the strike have kept changing. At different times it has been described as deterrence, dismantling nuclear capability, leadership targeting, bringing democracy and regional stabilisation. The latest explanation is particularly difficult to follow. It says the United States struck Iran because the U.S. expected that, after Israel’s attack, Iran might target American bases. Such a justification raises obvious questions about the real purpose behind the strike.
The bombing of a school, a sports complex and medical facilities also raises another question. The United States often speaks of the accuracy and precision of its weapons. When such places are hit, it becomes difficult to believe that everything was accidental. Yet such deaths are often brushed aside as “collateral damage”.
According to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, the civilian toll from the strikes has risen sharply, with more than 1,000 people reported dead and many more injured across different cities. These numbers show that the suffering has gone far beyond the stated initial targets.
A Pattern Seen in Earlier Wars
This attack fits into a longer pattern of interventions carried out in the name of democracy. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified on the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that the war would bring democratic reform. Those weapons were never found. The invasion instead led to the collapse of institutions and years of instability. Research by the Costs of War project estimates that the wars launched by the United States after 9/11 have contributed to about 4.5 million deaths and displaced more than 38 million people.
It was during the build-up to the Iraq invasion that George W. Bush made the famous statement: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” That line shaped global politics at the time and left little room for disagreement. And of course, there have always been governments and commentators ready to support whatever the United States does.
Similar outcomes were seen elsewhere. In Libya, the removal of the government led to fragmentation and fighting between rival groups. Syria has endured a long war involving several foreign powers. Egypt too saw major political turmoil after external and internal pressures reshaped its political path. These cases show a repeated pattern where intervention did not bring the stability that was promised.
From Panama to Venezuela
Latin America has also experienced direct U.S. military action. In 1989, the United States invaded Panama and arrested Manuel Noriega, who had once been a close ally. More recently, in January 2026, U.S. Special Forces carried out a military operation in Caracas and captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. They were taken to New York to face drug-trafficking charges, which they deny. The removal of a sitting head of state in this manner by a country that calls itself a defender of democracy is deeply troubling.
The United States’ steady support for Israel has also drawn criticism over the years, particularly during military operations in Gaza and the West Bank, where large numbers of civilians have lost their lives.
International Reactions and Growing Concerns
Not every country has supported the recent actions. The Spanish government refused to allow the United States to use military bases on Spanish soil for attacks on Iran. Spain said such use should comply with international agreements and legal norms. The U.S. response was swift: President Donald Trump threatened to cut off trade with Spain after its refusal. Many in Spain and other European countries supported Madrid’s position, saying it was a stand for sovereignty and international law. Cutting off trade relations and imposing high tariffs are the new weapons in the President’s arsenal.
Some commentators have also suggested that domestic political pressures within the United States sometimes coincide with sudden military actions abroad. These claims are debated and may not always be supported by clear evidence. Even so, the perception itself is significant. When military action appears to distract from internal problems, it weakens credibility.
The Question of Democracy and Intervention
Across many regions the results have often been similar: weakened institutions, civilian suffering and long-term instability. If democracy and stability are truly the objectives, it is reasonable to ask why undemocratic methods are repeatedly used to achieve them. Like several past actions carried out by the United States and its allies, the attack on Iran too deserves strong condemnation.
