Washington Drops Last Restrictions: Pentagon Dismantles Civilian Protection System, Leading the World Towards the Law of Force

Washington – Said Arikat – 18/5/2026

News Analysis

In a development that reveals profound shifts within the American military establishment, a report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense showed that the Pentagon has not only weakened the program for reducing civilian casualties in wars but has effectively dismantled a large part of the institutional structure established after decades of international criticism of American military operations in the Middle East and Asia. The report does not merely highlight an administrative failure or bureaucratic reduction; rather, it reflects a political and strategic shift in Washington's view of war, international law, and the limits of using force.

Established in 2022 by a decision from former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, the program was a result of immense pressure accumulated after years of American wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen, where human rights organizations documented the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians due to airstrikes and drones. The program's goal was to create a permanent system within the Pentagon to review strikes, analyze errors, and develop mechanisms to reduce civilian deaths, thereby maintaining – at least formally – the image of the United States as a nation claiming to respect international law.

However, what the Inspector General's report revealed indicates that the Trump administration views this system as a political and military burden that restricts the freedom to use force, especially at a stage witnessing widespread American escalation against Iran and its allies in the region. The report confirms that oversight meetings have ceased, technical monitoring tools have been suspended, and the program has been emptied of its specialized personnel, to the extent that former officials described what remains of it as an “empty shell.”

The political significance of this step lies in its timing. The dismantling of the program accelerated concurrently with intensive American strikes against Iran, which drew widespread criticism due to the high number of civilian casualties, especially after a primary school in Minab city was targeted, resulting in a large number of child deaths. Here, it does not appear to be an administrative coincidence, but rather part of an American redefinition of the concept of “acceptable war,” where humanitarian restrictions become less important in the face of the priority of rapid military decisive action.

More tellingly, the Trump administration did not even try to fully conceal this trend. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth repeatedly defended American military operations with the same logic Israel uses in Gaza and Lebanon: holding the adversary fully responsible for civilian deaths under the pretext of using residential areas for military purposes. This discourse, previously seen as part of Israeli security doctrine, has now become an increasingly integral part of official American military rhetoric.

This shift reflects a deeper change in American political culture after two decades of the “War on Terror.” In the post-9/11 era, successive American administrations tried – even if formally – to maintain a balance between the use of force and respect for international law. Today, however, the Trump administration appears closer to adopting an approach based on the idea that American military superiority grants Washington the right to set the rules itself, rather than adhering to shared international rules.

Hence, the danger of the Inspector General's report lies not only in disrupting an administrative program but in being an indicator of a gradual decline in the idea of “accountability” within the American military establishment. When investigative and review bodies are weakened, military operations become less subject to scrutiny, and civilian deaths become a secondary issue that can be contained by political discourse in the media.

This transformation places the United States on an increasingly intersecting path with the Israeli experience. Israel, which has faced widespread international accusations of committing grave violations in Gaza, has for years relied on a fundamental principle: maintaining military superiority while managing political costs through controlling the media narrative and Western support. Today, it seems that Washington is gradually adopting the same logic, not only in the Middle East but as part of its broader military doctrine.

The problem is that the United States is not an ordinary state in the international system. When Washington disregards the laws of war or weakens institutions for civilian protection, it does not merely change its own behavior; it reshapes global standards. Other major powers, such as Russia and China, will find in this American behavior an additional justification for rejecting Western criticisms concerning human rights. Moreover, smaller regional states will realize that adherence to international law is no longer an actual condition for international legitimacy, as long as military power and political alliances provide protection.

Experts in international law fear that this path will accelerate the collapse of what remains of the international humanitarian law system established after World War II. International laws derive their strength not only from texts but from the commitment of major powers to them. When these powers themselves begin to treat these laws as optional, they lose their ability to compel others.

In this context, the dismantling of the civilian protection program becomes more than just an internal American issue; it is an indicator of the world's transition to a new phase where humanitarian considerations recede before the logic of raw power. This phase may witness more bloody wars in the future, more blurred lines between civilian and military, and an increasing normalization of the idea that widespread human losses are merely a “necessary price” for achieving strategic goals.

It is difficult to understand the current American shift in isolation from the increasing Israeli influence on Western security doctrine, especially after the events in Gaza and the war with Iran. For years, Israel has succeeded in imposing an equation that considers any criticism of its military conduct an infringement on its right to “self-defense,” an equation that Washington has begun to adopt almost completely. Over time, this logic transforms into a political cover that allows for the expansion of military operations and the reduction of the importance of civilian casualties, thereby creating an international environment where power, not law, becomes the primary source of legitimacy.

The most dangerous aspect of these policies is that they not only weaken the moral image of the United States but also undermine its long-term strategic capability. Wars with high numbers of civilian casualties often generate new waves of anger, extremism, and instability. In other words, ignoring civilian protection may achieve short-term tactical military gains, but it simultaneously sows the seeds of more complex future conflicts. This has been proven by America's own experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, where widespread violations contributed to fueling armed movements instead of eliminating them.

If the United States continues in this direction, the world may witness an unprecedented decline in the effectiveness of international humanitarian law in the coming years. States do not adhere to international laws solely out of moral imperative, but because they see that major powers are also committed to them. However, when Washington itself becomes a model for circumventing these rules, the message that reaches the world is clear: any state with sufficient power can act without real accountability. This is a dangerous precedent that could return international relations to the logic of raw power that prevailed before the establishment of the United Nations and modern Geneva Conventions.