US Warnings of Collapse of Civilian Protection Rules Due to War on Iran

American writer Nicholas Kristof affirmed that the ongoing war against Iran raises deep concerns about the decline in adherence to international rules established after World War II. He explained in an article that these laws were specifically designed to protect civilians and spare them the horrors of armed conflicts, but today they are threatened with complete collapse.

Kristof used a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the double standards, noting that if Iran were to launch missiles from the Mexican border that destroyed an American school and killed dozens, Washington's reaction would be loud and condemnatory of the attack on innocents. He considered this hypothetical American anger to reflect the gap between what Washington accepts for itself and what it rejects for others.

The article reviewed the history of brutality in wars, recalling the firebombing of Tokyo that killed thousands in a few hours. He pointed out that the United States was at the forefront of countries that led international efforts to establish the Geneva Protocols, which prohibit targeting vital infrastructure on which civilian populations depend.

The writer believes that these rules have begun to erode rapidly in recent years, citing Russian attacks on infrastructure in Ukraine. He also drew attention to reports from a United Nations committee that accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon and systematically targeting children and destroying health and educational systems in the Gaza Strip.

Kristof touched upon the American role in supplying Israel with weapons used in Gaza, considering that Washington merely declares its commitment to the laws of war without exerting actual pressure to stop the violations. He expressed his fear that a direct war with Iran would lead the American administration to definitively abandon the principles it has long claimed to defend.

The article quoted legal scholar Oona Hathaway as confirming that attacks on Iran may lack international legitimacy due to not having a mandate from the Security Council. Hathaway added that the nature of American and Israeli strikes raises serious questions about the possibility of committing war crimes, especially in the absence of an immediate self-defense justification.

In a field context, sources indicated civilian casualties in Iran, including about 175 people who died in a bombing that targeted a girls' school. Although such incidents may sometimes be attributed to technical errors, their recurrence indicates gross negligence in selecting military targets and disregard for civilian lives.

Iranian reports also monitored the targeting of vital facilities, including a desalination plant serving dozens of villages, in addition to widespread destruction of homes and medical centers. UNICEF warned that the death toll of children in multiple regional conflicts has exceeded 1,100 children, including killed and injured.

For his part, David Crane, former war crimes prosecutor, warned that targeting water stations and essential services amounts to war crimes. Crane pointed out that the world is sliding into a dangerous phase of 'lawless conflicts,' where accountability is absent and civilian lives are violated under security and military pretexts.

Kristof concluded his article by referring to condemning international positions, with European officials describing the war as illegal and reckless. He warned that the failure to protect international rules would not only lead to global energy instability but would also mean that humanity as a whole would be the biggest loser in the face of declining international efforts to curb the brutality of conflicts.

The world is entering a phase of lawless conflicts, where the rules humanity tried to establish to limit the horrors of wars have eroded.