US-Israeli aggression has destabilized the Middle East and turned it into a powder keg

Through their actions, the United States and Israel have transformed the Middle East into a far more dangerous place, and established themselves as the biggest destabilizing force in the region.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack.

“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

These words, pronounced by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946, were meant to serve as an eternal indictment of aggressive war and a bulwark against the very atrocities it inevitably unleashes. They declared that the crime of starting an unprovoked conflict carries within it every subsequent horror—civilian slaughter, shattered societies, refugee crises, economic ruin, and the slow erosion of global order.

Today, in the wake of the collapse of the two-week ceasefire with Iran announced by President Donald Trump on April 7, 2026, Nuremberg’s verdict echoes with terrifying clarity. The agreement was precarious from the moment it was signed—a cynical pause designed not to end hostilities but to buy time for the continuation of a war of aggression launched by the United States and Israel on February 28. That original assault, and every violation of international law that has followed—including the breakdown of Pakistan-mediated peace talks in Islamabad over the weekend and the subsequent US threats to blockade the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping traffic—embodies the “accumulated evil” Nuremberg warned against. The ceasefire’s swift failure was not an unfortunate accident; it was the predictable consequence of a policy rooted in lawlessness, hubris, and an unshakable commitment to Israeli impunity.

Almost immediately after Trump’s announcement, Israeli forces expanded their strikes deep into Lebanon, hitting more than 100 targets in a single ten-minute barrage across commercial and residential districts of central Beirut. Lebanese health authorities now report civilian deaths climbing rapidly, with more than 280 killed over a 48 hour period alone—the highest single-day toll in the Israel-Hezbollah war—along with hundreds wounded and the overall displacement of more than 1.7 million Lebanese from the southern part of the country. In direct response, Iran once again closed the Strait of Hormuz and imposed tolls on shipping. The fragile truce, which Iranian officials explicitly insisted include an immediate end to the war in Lebanon, lies in ruins. However, Israel refuses to recognize that Lebanon was ever part of the agreement, exposing the selective and self-serving nature of the so-called peace deal.

This breach was not an aberration but the expected outcome of a pattern of bad faith negotiating that has defined Israeli and American policy in the region for years. Israel has violated every ceasefire it has ever agreed to—both in the recent past two and a half years and in the decades prior—including the so-called ceasefire with Hamas signed in October 2025, which it shattered with near-daily attacks, killing hundreds of Palestinians and racking up more than 2,000 documented violations by March 2026. The same pattern has played out repeatedly in Lebanon, where Israel stands accused of thousands of breaches of the 2024 ceasefire agreement. 

Netanyahu’s government and the Trump administration now claim the US-Iran truce “does not cover Lebanon,” but that self-serving caveat was never accepted by Tehran. The ceasefire was never meant to hold; it was merely a temporary pause in a war of aggression that Washington and Jerusalem launched—an operation that has already exacted a devastating human and strategic toll and that carries, in Nuremberg’s precise language, the accumulated evil of all the atrocities that have followed. 

The original assault on February 28 remains the root of the entire catastrophe. On that day, US and Israeli forces unleashed coordinated airstrikes across Iran in what was dubbed Operation Epic Fury. The attacks assassinated Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, bombed nuclear and military sites, and indiscriminately killed civilians, including more than 165 girls and staff at an elementary school. There was no armed attack by Iran that could justify such action under Article 51 of the UN Charter, given that negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program were still active at the time. There was no imminent threat, no UN Security Council authorization, and no lawful claim of self-defence could be made by either the US or Israel. The strikes constituted a classic war of aggression—the “supreme international crime” condemned at Nuremberg as the crime that contains within itself the accumulated evil of all subsequent atrocities.

The legal violations are clear and damning. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is unequivocal declaring that states must refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. The US-Israeli operation shattered that prohibition in the most flagrant manner. Legal scholars have repeatedly affirmed that pre-emptive wars of choice, launched while diplomacy was still underway, violate the post-1945 international order that was designed precisely to prevent such acts of naked aggression. The subsequent bombing of schools, hospitals, and civilian infrastructure only compounded the original crime. International humanitarian law—the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I—forbids attacks on objects indispensable to civilian survival and demands strict distinction between military and civilian targets. Deliberate or reckless strikes on health centres and schools are war crimes under any reasonable interpretation of the law. 

Compounding the legal atrocities is the incendiary rhetoric from the White House itself. Trump’s own social-media rants have escalated the criminality into genocidal territory. He threatened to make Iran “live in Hell,” promised attacks on power plants and bridges, and declared that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” Under Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention, such statements can be seen as telegraphing intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national or ethnic group by inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. Threatening to annihilate an ancient civilization—its people, culture, and millennia-old heritage—meets that legal threshold. Experts have already labelled these declarations as potential incitement to genocide and war crimes. 

The fact is that the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz was entirely manufactured by the US-Israeli initial act of aggression. Before February 28, commercial shipping was moving normally through the waterway that carries one-fifth of global oil and gas. Only after the bombs began falling did Iran assert control, reduce shipping volume, and begin collecting toll from ships that were allowed to pass. The closure was defensive and in reaction to US-Israeli aggression, not provocative. Iran’s re-closure of the waterway this week is the predictable consequence of Israel’s violation of the ceasefire’s Lebanon provisions and the mounting civilian slaughter there. 

Each additional provocation only deepens global sympathy for Iran and erodes Washington’s moral authority. This latest escalation follows directly on the breakdown of Pakistan-mediated peace talks in Islamabad, which collapsed without agreement over the weekend despite offering a genuine path to de-escalation. In the wake of that failure, the United States has now threatened a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping traffic—an act of economic warfare that further militarizes the chokepoint and exposes the hollowness of any American commitment to peace. 

The human and strategic costs of this military aggression are already staggering beyond imagination. Civilian deaths inside Iran exceed 2,000. Power plants, bridges, and homes remain in the cross hairs, and the global economic costs are mounting, with a potential to plunge 32 million in to poverty, and create a global recession Additionally, the latest Lebanese massacres—more than 280 dead in just two days—demonstrates that Israel has no intention of honouring even the limited truce it signed. Should the conflict reignite fully, the “accumulated evil” of the initial aggression will metastasize. Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and the broader “Axis of Resistance” will be drawn in. Refugee flows, oil-price shocks, direct retaliation against US bases, and proxy wars across multiple borders would follow. 

The Persian Gulf and the Levant could erupt into a conflagration dwarfing any recent Middle East conflict, pulling in surrounding nations—Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states—in a vortex of retaliation none of them sought. This avoidable war with Iran could easily lead to a wider regional war with some analysts predicting it could even lead to World War 3, as alliances are tested and superpowers are drawn into the fray through cascading proxy conflicts and economic desperation.

Through their actions, the United States and Israel have transformed the Middle East into a far more dangerous place, and established themselves as the biggest destabilizing force in the region. Rather than acting as forces for stability or sincerely committing to peace, their unprovoked aggression has fuelled cycles of violence, resentment, and instability that threaten to engulf the entire region and far beyond. The war with Iran was completely avoidable, yet Washington and Jerusalem opted for missiles and bombs over bargaining in a display of arrogance that has now destabilized multiple borders simultaneously. This choice has not only violated international law but has also sacrificed the safety and lives of tens of millions of innocents on the altar of America’s unequivocal support to its genocidal Israeli ally. 

The main victims of this unholy alliance have been Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims, whose lives hold little value in the pursuit of Israeli security objectives and America’s goal of controlling Middle-East oil. From the relentless violations and civilian slaughter in Gaza to the carnage in Lebanon and the war against Iran, these populations have borne the brunt of the suffering, with their homes destroyed, families torn apart, and futures obliterated to appease a rogue terrorist nation that operates with impunity while the US provides diplomatic cover, arms, and political support at every turn.

The evils of war are not abstract concepts to be debated in think tanks. They are visceral, devastating realities that destroy lives, communities, and the fragile fabric of international trust. Wars bring indiscriminate death to children and civilians, widespread population displacements that creates generations of refugees, economic collapse that ripples across continents, and a legacy of hatred that poisons societies for decades. 

In the current scenario American and Israeli actions pose an existential global threat, undermining the very foundations of global peace and security that have held since 1945. By flouting the UN Charter, committing what amount to war crimes, and declaring genocidal intent (as Israel actually commits genocide), they have set a dangerous precedent that could encourage other nations to engage in similar acts of aggression to achieve their geopolitical goals, leading to a breakdown of the global order and the very real prospect of uncontrollable escalation. 

Additionally, the risk of a wider war is not hypothetical. It is imminent, with the potential to draw the world into a conflict of unprecedented scale involving energy chokepoints, proxy armies, and nuclear-armed states. There is also the reality that Trump’s words and actions have thoroughly destroyed America’s reputation on the world stage. Once seen as a leading proponent of diplomacy and the rule of law, the US under Trump is now seen as unreliable, impulsive, belligerent and dangerous. His threats and the childish rampage that characterized his approach to Iran have marked what many describe as the end of the American century, leaving even its closest allies questioning whether they can trust Washington anymore. The world will ultimately pay for Trump’s Iran mess, as global stability hangs in the balance due to his reckless policies and the resulting chaos. A nation that even its allies don’t trust any more is a nation adrift, its moral authority in tatters and its alliances fraying at the seams. 

Canada’s response has been characteristically timid, reflecting the broader erosion of trust among traditional partners. Prime Minister Mark Carney has issued vague calls for “respect for international law and human rights” but has offered no specific condemnation of either Trump’s genocidal threats or Israel’s criminal actions either in Gaza, Iran or Lebanon. Ottawa appears content with platitudes about “deep concern” and “calls for restraint,” prioritizing economic and security ties with Washington over moral leadership. History will judge whether such silence amounts to complicity in the face of clear violations. 

In the end, the shattered ceasefire changes nothing fundamental. The war of aggression began on February 28, and its criminality persists. Civilian infrastructure still lies in ruins; hospitals and schools still bear the scars of illegal attacks. Genocide still continues in Gaza, while additional genocidal rhetoric still emanates from the White House. 

The Strait of Hormuz remains a flash point of America’s own making. And the risk of a wider war—engulfing neighbouring states in uncontrollable escalation—looms larger than ever. If the international community allows this precedent to stand, the UN Charter and the UN itself become meaningless, and Nuremberg’s verdict becomes a historical footnote. The greater danger is that Israeli sabotage of the ceasefire—coupled with the rising tide of Lebanese civilian deaths—will now be used as pretext for renewed attacks while the architects of the original aggression face no reckoning.

Only by naming the February 28 strikes, and every subsequent violation—including the collapse of mediated diplomacy and the provocative U.S. blockade threats—for what they are—an illegal, unprovoked war that has already produced war crimes and follows the example of the atrocities committed in the Gaza genocide—can we hope to avert the regional eruption that still threatens us all. The fault lies squarely with the United States and Israel. Until that reality is confronted through concrete international action, including accountability mechanisms that ensure no impunity for these aggressor nations, peace in the Persian Gulf and the Levant will remain a fragile and ultimately illusory hope. The Nuremberg principles demand nothing less: aggressors must face justice, or the accumulated evil of war will continue to consume us all.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

It’s time for regime change in the United States and Israel to restore international law

A global regime-change campaign against lesser violators rings hollow without confronting the architects of global impunity—the United States and Israel.

By Fareed Khan 

A version of this can be found on Substack.

In the pantheon of post-World War Two violators of international norms, no two states rival the United States and Israel in the scale, frequency, or the sheer impunity of their actions. As Noam Chomsky has powerfully documented in works such as Hegemony or Survival and his essay The Dangerous Rogue States Operating in the Mideast, these nations function as twin rogue powers, freely resorting to aggression, terror, and systematic violations of the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Genocide Convention.

While other states, like Russia and China, have undoubtedly committed grave offenc

es, some on multiple occasions, none approach the breadth of America's and Israel's combined record—illegal wars, prolonged occupations, orchestrated coups, false-flag operations, and destabilizing interventions spanning continents. If a genuine global campaign is ever needed to enforce accountability through regime change, it must begin with Washington and Tel Aviv.

This is not hyperbole but the logical extension of analyses by Chomsky, William Blum in Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two, Ilan Pappé in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, and Norman Finkelstein in Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom. Their scholarship lays bare a pattern that demands action to address the problem at the source.

Since 1948, when it was created on stolen Palestinian land, Israel’s violations form a continuous arc of territorial conquest and collective punishment. It has occupied and bombed every nation on its borders—Egypt in 1956 and 1967, Jordan in 1967, Syria repeatedly (seizing the Golan Heights in 1967 and annexing it illegally in 1981, in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 497), and Lebanon in 1978, 1982, 2006, and beyond. Palestinian lands have remained under constant and brutal occupation for almost six decades, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention’s prohibitions on settlement and collective punishment, as well as UN resolutions 242 and 338 demanding withdrawal. Pappé meticulously chronicles this as incremental ethnic cleansing, while Finkelstein demonstrates how Gaza’s siege and repeated assaults meet the Genocide Convention’s criteria of intent to destroy a group in whole or in part.

The International Court of Justice’s ongoing proceedings and UN experts’ findings underscore these breaches. Israel’s actions have displaced millions, killed more than 680,000 in Gaza alone according to one study, and flouted the Universal Declaration’s guarantees of self-determination and freedom from arbitrary deprivation of life. No other state since 1945 has maintained such prolonged, illegal occupations while rejecting UN authority with US protection and complicity.

The US ledger is even longer and more global. Blum’s Killing Hope catalogues over fifty CIA-orchestrated coups, invasions, and destabilizations—the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government (Operation Ajax); installing the Shah as his replacement and sowing seeds for decades of resentment; the 1954 coup in Guatemala that unleashed genocidal civil war; the 1973 coup against Chile’s Salvador Allende, ushering in the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet; interventions in Africa in Congo, Ghana, Angola and Mozambique; Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia); and Latin America (Nicaragua’s Contras, Grenada in 1983, and Panama in 1989). These are just a few of the operations that routinely violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter banning threats or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence.

The 2003 Iraq War stands as a textbook case of an illegal and unjust war. Launched on fabricated claims about weapons of mass destruction—blatant lies exposed by the Downing Street Memo—without Security Council authorization, it resulted in more than a million Iraqis killed, destabilized the region, and birthing extremist groups like ISIS. Chomsky labels this the hallmark of a “failed state” that exempts itself from the rules it imposes on others.

Both nations have weaponized false flags and covert coups to rationalize their criminal actions. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, later admitted as fabricated, propelled US escalation in the Vietnam War, costing millions of innocent lives. Proposed but unexecuted schemes like Operation Northwoods (1962) relating to Cuba, reveal a pattern of manufacturing pretexts to achieve geopolitical objectives. Israel’s history includes alleged provocations in border conflicts, while joint US-Israeli intelligence has fuelled coups from Tehran to Santiago.

These tactics erode sovereignty, as Blum details—sovereign governments toppled not for security or in response to aggression but for resource control and ideological conformity. The destabilizing fallout has been catastrophic, resulting in civil wars, refugee crises impacting millions, and economic collapse. The war in Iraq fragmented the Middle East, Latin American coups entrenched inequality, African interventions prolonged proxy conflicts. Such chaos, orchestrated by these two rogue nations, repeatedly violated the UN Charter’s core purpose—maintaining international peace and security.

Today, this pattern continues in the unprovoked US-Israeli assault on Iran, launched February 28, 2026. What began as airstrikes under “Operation Epic Fury” and “Roaring Lion” has resulted in the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, targeted nuclear research and missile sites, civilian infrastructure, all in pursuit of regime change. Experts at the UN have condemned it as “flagrant violation of international law” and an “act of aggression,” executed while the US was in diplomatic negotiations with Iran, where progress was being made. Legal scholars and analysts describe their actions as illegal under the UN Charter, lacking Security Council approval or a credible self-defence claim. Iranian retaliation followed, yet the initiators’ stated goal—overthrowing a sovereign government—mirrors the very interventions Blum and Chomsky have chronicled for decades.

This war, with civilian deaths mounting, including strikes on schools and hospitals, exemplifies the hypocrisy often displayed by both the US and Israel—powers that lecture on nuclear non-proliferation while violating it themselves through nuclear ambiguity (Israel) and pre-emptive force (both).

Critics rightly note that other states also have blood on their hands, but none approach the quantitative and qualitative dominance and aggression of the US-Israeli axis.  The US maintains over 800 overseas bases in 70 countries, projects power globally, and has vetoed UN resolutions dozens of times to shield Israel from being held accountable for its criminal actions.

Israel, as Chomsky observes, acts with impunity and with US support, rejecting International Atomic Energy Association inspections while demanding them of Iran. Their combined interventions have reshaped the destiny of nations around the globe, through coups (Iran, Guatemala, Chile), illegal wars (Iraq, Vietnam), and occupations (Golan, West Bank, Gaza blockade). The Genocide Convention, invoked against others, applies here also. Finkelstein’s inquest into Gaza and Pappé’s settler-colonial framework reveal systematic intent. The Universal Declaration’s rights to life, self-determination, freedom from torture are trampled daily at the hands of the leaders of these two nations. No rival tally is comparable.  China’s or Russia’s actions, while serious and at times egregious (Russia's war with Georgia and China's crackdown on democracy protests over the decades), lack this post-1945 breadth of extraterritorial subversion.

A global regime-change campaign against lesser violators rings hollow without confronting the two top architects of global impunity. Chomsky urges recognizing US exceptionalism as the obstacle to peace, while Blum demands dismantling the intervention machine. Pappé and Finkelstein join them with calls to end Israeli apartheid and occupation, with external force if needed. Extending their logic, the world must mobilize and apply universal sanctions, arms embargoes, ICC prosecutions for American and Israeli leaders, support domestic movements to rebuild democratic institutions, and amplify BDS-style isolation for the two nations. Regime change here will mean empowering peoples to reclaim sovereignty—through non-violent pressure where possible, and other means where necessary. Only then can the UN Charter regain meaning, the Genocide Convention deter future atrocities, and human rights become universal rather than selective. The alternative is a world trapped in perpetual hypocrisy—one where the most powerful nations proclaim universal rules while brazenly violating them, sowing the seeds of endless conflict and instability.  

 

Through decades of meticulous scholarship and irrefutable evidence, thinkers such as Chomsky, Blum, Pappé, and Finkelstein have demonstrated beyond doubt that no other states since 1945 have matched the United States and Israel in the sheer scale, duration, and audacity of their violations of international law, human rights, and the foundations of global order, all but making the case for regime change in these two nations.

 

True justice demands that we finally turn the lens inward. Rather than selectively punishing lesser violators while shielding the architects of impunity The international community must summon the resolve to launch a sustained, principled global campaign aimed at regime change in Washington and Tel Aviv, the very epicentre of systemic global lawlessness. Nothing less will restore credibility to the United Nations Charter, halt the cycle of aggression, and secure the survival of a rules-based international order worthy of the name.

© The View From Here. © Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

America’s illegal attack on Iran is just as criminal as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

"War is essentially an evil thing . . . To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime . . .” – Nuremberg Declaration on the Crime of Aggression (1946)

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack. 

For the past four years, American political and media elites have heaped condemnation on Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—imposing sanctions, supplying weapons to Ukrainian forces, and framing Moscow’s actions as grave violations of international law. Yet as of February 28th, the United States under President Donald Trump—alongside Israel—has launched a large-scale, illegal and unprovoked military campaign against Iran.

 

The parallels between Russia’s war in Ukraine and the US-Israeli assault on Iran are striking and undeniable. Both involve unprovoked aggression against sovereign nations, Orwellian rhetoric to deny the reality of war, fabricated claims of imminent threats from the nation being attacked, and the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity through the targeting of civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, the attack on Iran echoes the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, which unleashed decades of regional instability, resulted in the death of millions of innocents, and risks the same catastrophic outcomes today.

It’s notable that both aggressors refuse to call their actions a “war.” When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, it labelled its assault a “special military operation,” banning Russian officials and media from using terms like “war,” “invasion,” or “attack.” This linguistic evasion allowed Moscow to maintain the fiction of a limited, defensive action while prosecuting full-scale aggression against its neighbour.

 

The Trump administration is employing the same Orwellian doublespeak. In announcing the attack on Iran Trump talked about “major combat operations”, not a war. Similarly his Republican allies are insisting, “This isn’t a war,” “We haven’t declared war on Iran,” and “We are not at war with the Iranian people.” White House messaging to Republican in Congress has urged framing the campaign as “major combat operations” or “strategic strikes” rather than war.

This approach echoes the themes of George Orwell’s novel “1984”, where aggressive bombing becomes mere “operations,” war becomes “peace”, and denial becomes government policy. The hypocrisy is clear when one compares the current situation to the speech that President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the day following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor—an attack that occurred during ongoing peace negotiations—which the US immediately deemed an act of war. By comparison, Oman-mediated US-Iran nuclear talks were reportedly making “significant progress” and were “within reach” just hours before the February 28 strikes began. Yet the Trump administration denies that any state of war exists.

Let’s examine the justifications for the attacks given by both Russia and the US. In both instances the leaders of each nation rely on baseless claims of “pre-emptive” strikes against an “imminent threat.” In 2022, Putin asserted that Ukraine and NATO posed an immediate danger to Russia—a claim unsupported by credible evidence. Similarly, Trump and his officials have justified the US attack on Iran by insisting the country posed an imminent threat, pointing to its arsenal of ballistic missiles, the alleged impending assembly of nuclear warheads, and potential retaliation against Israeli actions, which would endanger American troops in the region. Yet Pentagon briefings to Congress revealed no intelligence indicating Iran planned a first strike on the United States or that it posed an imminent threat to US military bases on its borders.

Adding to the confusion is the uncoordinated messaging from trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who suggested the US struck pre-emptively because Israel was planning its own attack on Iran, which would have prompted Tehran to retaliate against American forces in the region. This convoluted logic—attacking first to avert a hypothetical response to Israel’s planned aggression—only escalates an already unstable situation rather than pursuing de-escalation by restraining America’s primary Middle East ally.

The inconsistent and illogical American reasoning mirrors Putin’s pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine and quickly collapses under scrutiny. There is no credible evidence supporting the notion of an imminent Iranian attack or any direct threat to US military assets in the Persian Gulf region or on the US homeland. Moreover, assertions that Iran was on the verge of assembling a nuclear warhead are refuted by US and NATO intelligence experts, who confirm that Iran lacks the near-term capacity to produce a functional nuclear weapon.

Third, and most gravely, both the Russian and American attacks involve war crimes through the deliberate or reckless targeting of civilians. Russia faced global condemnation for bombing a school in Bilohorivka, Ukraine, on May 7, 2022, where around 90 civilians were sheltering, with approximately 60 killed or feared dead after an airstrike set the building ablaze. Russian attacks on hospitals drew similar condemnations from the US and its allies. In March 2022, Hillary Clinton tweeted that Russian leaders should stop bombing hospitals if they wished to avoid war-crimes accusations.

The US-Israeli campaign against Iran replicates Russia’s pattern. The day of the first strikes a missile hit a girls’ elementary school in Minab, southern Iran, killing at least 165 schoolgirls (with some reports citing up to 175 deaths). Satellite imagery and analyses attribute the strike to US forces amid operations targeting a nearby naval base. Had Iran perpetrated such an attack on American soil it would have been front page news for days amid international outrage. But because the children weren’t white or Christian the response by Western governments, including Canada’s, has been muted.

Attacks in the following days saw bomb and missile damage to hospitals, including Gandhi Hospital in Tehran, forcing evacuations amid broader strikes on civilian sites. Iranian authorities reported that multiple medical facilities had been hit, alongside more schools and strikes in residential areas. United Nations experts condemned the school bombing as a “grave violation of humanitarian law” and called for investigation. If Russian attacks on schools and hospitals om Ukraine constituted war crimes—and international consensus holds they did—then US and Israeli actions demand the same judgment under the Geneva Conventions.

The rhetorical justifications by both Russia and the US are merely interchangeable propaganda. Putin claimed his actions in Ukraine were intended to fight “Nazis” and terrorists while “liberating” Ukrainians. Trump asserts that American actions combats Iranian “terrorists” and brings “freedom” to Iranians oppressed by the regime. Both promise that regime change will usher in freedom and democracy, while denying their on self-serving imperialistic geopolitical motives.

The true driver behind the US-Israeli assault on Iran is a long-standing Israeli strategic objective—spanning nearly four decades—to neutralize Iran, the last major Muslim power in the Middle East capable of resisting Israeli dominance and the last Muslim nation in the region steadfastly supporting the Palestinian struggle for freedom. For years, Israeli governments, particularly under Benjamin Netanyahu, have pressed successive US presidents—both Republican and Democratic—to join or lead military action against Iran. Previous administrations resisted Israel’s agenda of military aggression, recognizing the likely havoc that would ensue—widespread instability, massive civilian casualties, and prolonged regional turmoil.

This pattern echoes the 2003 US invasion of Iraq—a war also strongly advocated by Netanyahu—launched without UN Security Council authorization, predicated on fabricated claims of weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent ties to al-Qaeda. Then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan explicitly declared the invasion illegal under the UN Charter, stating that it was not in conformity with the UN’s foundational document and was illegal. The consequences of that war (and the “war on terror”) have been devastating and enduring—more than four million dead, millions more displaced, the rise of ISIS from the resulting power vacuum, sectarian violence and instability, and the loss of an entire generation of human potential. The impact of that illegal war will continue to afflict the region for generations.

Today’s campaign against Iran follows the identical playbook—no congressional declaration of war, no UN mandate, and a constantly shifting set of rationales—regime change one moment, missile disarmament the next, nuclear prevention another. The inevitable outcome will mirror Iraq’s aftermath and result in widespread civilian devastation, power vacuums that breed extremism and new terrorist groups, and decades of chaos exported across the Middle East and beyond. History has already shown that such unprovoked interventions do not enhance security; they undermine it, creating the very threats they purport to eliminate.

International law offers no exceptions to nations, even those that are superpowers. The UN Charter prohibits unprovoked force except in self-defence against armed attack or with Security Council approval—neither applies here. Bombing schools and hospitals, assassinating leaders during diplomacy, and launching pre-emptive wars violate core humanitarian norms. The US cannot condemn Russian aggression while committing criminal acts that are similar. If outrage over Ukraine was principled, the same standards must apply to the US-Israeli attack on Iran. Accountability—via international courts if necessary—must follow.

The Iranian people, like the Ukrainians before them, deserve peace, not to serve as pawns in yet another superpower’s regime-change experiment. Regional stability will never emerge from more bombs. History, from the catastrophic aftermath of Iraq onward, proves the opposite with grim consistency.

As the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg declared in its final judgment: “War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent States alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

Until the US confronts its own reflection in Putin’s actions—that launching an unprovoked war of aggression carries the same moral and legal weight regardless of who wields the power—the cycle of hypocrisy, war crimes, and spreading instability will persist unbroken. The only real distinction between Russia’s war on Ukraine and the US war against Iran is the language spoken by the aggressor nation. The fabrications that justify invasion, the suffering inflicted on civilians, and the long-term ruin sown across entire regions remain tragically, inexcusably identical.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.