In justifying the joint United States-Israel airstrikes on Iran, US politicians have adopted humanitarian rhetoric, claiming that their actions will enable the liberation of the Iranian population from repression (Even taking Trump’s confused reasons for the Iran war at face value, it’s still a total disaster, 13 March). The arguments echo the justifications offered before the 2003 war in Iraq. But the strikes on Iran have even weaker grounds to be considered humanitarian than the war in Iraq.
During the buildup to the Iraq war, there was at least a clear military objective: removing Saddam Hussein’s regime. By contrast, there is little evidence of a coherent plan for achieving regime change in Iran. Bombing alone is unlikely to produce it, yet no alternative strategy has been articulated. Humanitarian action would normally prioritise the minimisation of civilian harm. Yet early reports already suggest otherwise. An elementary school has been struck, killing 168 people, most of them young girls.
