By Ines Garcia (Y11)
“Old men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die.”
— Herbert Hoover
This quote is often used when discussing war, and it captures the painful reality that the people who make decisions surrounding conflict are rarely those who suffer the brunt of it. Early in his presidency, the current U.S. president, Donald Trump, emphasized the importance of protecting American lives. However, recently, he made a blunt statement to Times magazine, affirming that “Some people will die,” following the passing of 6 men stationed in a military base in Kuwait.
Putting the president’s hypocrisy aside, I feel it is important to inform on exactly what has transpired, seeing as the nature of the war is becoming increasingly complicated with every passing day.
In late February, the USA and Israel launched an attack on Iran, which led to the death of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This attack’s purpose was unclear at the time, as the leaders referenced multiple explanations, like the threat that Iran’s growing nuclear and ballistic power posed to Israel, and Iran’s non-compliance in meetings held to discuss the reduction of its nuclear energy. It remains unclear what exactly prompted the first strike, though Trump has mentioned that the destruction of the Iranian regime was a strong motivation for the attack.
Although U.S. ambassador Mike Waltz told the Security Council that the strikes were “directed toward specific and strategic objectives,” the deaths of at least 168 girls during an attack intended to hit a military base raise serious questions about the accuracy of these operations.
Iran retaliated, striking US military bases in multiple Middle Eastern Gulf countries, leaving thousands of people stranded and killing at least 12 civilians.
But what do the US and Israel stand to gain from this war?
Both governments have openly said that security, especially preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, is their top priority. The United States has frequently voiced concern over the amount of uranium enrichment reported by the International Atomic Energy Agency, while Israel has long seen Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat. According to this viewpoint, military actions are justified as a preventative step meant to undermine Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and lessen the possibility of a future nuclear-armed enemy in the area.
An undeniable fact is that of Iran’s vast energy resources, which would be of great interest to these two administrations. Because of the Middle East’s large shares of oil reserves, the involvement of these two nations could prove to be strategic.
Although strategic interests such as energy resources may play a role in the calculations of these governments, military action is often publicly justified as an effort to weaken or remove Iran’s authoritarian leadership.
Now, of course, in principle, getting rid of an authoritarian regime is an amazing feat; however, we know that this regime is a system, and wiping out its leader will not save the Iranian people from many more hardships to come. The dictator Ali Khamenei was also 86 years old, so many suspect that successors were already chosen in the event of Khamenei’s death. In fact, on the 8th of March, Ali Khamenei’s son Mojtaba Khamenei was elected by the Assembly of Experts. We know little about him, but he is suspected of holding a great influence in the brutal regime and of having been very involved behind the scenes
It is also difficult to believe that these decisions are driven purely by selfless intentions. I fear that Iranian civilians are being treated as collateral damage in this struggle rather than as victims in need of protection.
This is not the first time that the United States has involved itself with Middle Eastern countries seeking to topple a regime (and gain something more). However, much like the current war, this involvement led to disruption and casualties. For example, long-term instability was heightened by the power vacuum left by the overthrow of the Iraqi government. Following the invasion, sectarian violence between various political and religious factions escalated, resulting in years of conflict and uprising within the country.
Recently, public discourse has turned to the possibility of a “Third World War,” particularly since European nations begin to participate in diplomatic talks surrounding the strikes. Succeeding the retaliatory strike of Iran on a UK base in Cyprus, the world has anxiously waited to hear the EU’s verdict on how it will proceed, given the unwarranted involvement of a European nation. Now at first it seemed these organisations were choosing to sit idly by and watch civilian deaths and unrest unfold as a result of the war; however, over the course of the conflict the stances of many nations have been revealed, some choosing to support the US and Israel’s efforts, and some resisting Trump’s many desires like his call for an increase in NATO funds in defense.
The international response to the attack has been mixed. The United Nations has called for de-escalation, communicating its belief that the attack undermined peace. Meanwhile, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Union’s Commission, responded to growing international concern by bluntly stating that “Europe can no longer be a custodian of the old world order.” The comment sparked significant public backlash, prompting Von der Leyen to later retract the harsh statement.
European nations have also taken differing approaches in response to the crisis. Spain and France have maintained that they do not support the attack itself, but have emphasised their commitment to defending other European nations from an attack. Following the attack on Cyprus, both countries sent military vessels to the area. In contrast, Germany and the United Kingdom have been more compliant with the US’s demands, allowing them to use their military bases.
As of right now, this war has been going on for 11 days, and the global economy has felt it. A concern is the blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategic points for oil shipping, inflating the cost of goods worldwide. As if these developments aren’t enough, Netanyahu and Trump are urging Iranians to take control of their government, effectively admitting they will take a step back regarding their aims of destroying the regime.
The reaction within Iran itself has been far more complex. Following the declaration of Khamenei’s death, Iranian’s took to the streets, some to mourn and some to celebrate. These mixed feelings regarding the leader’s death are understandable, as both support and hatred for the regime are widespread throughout Iran.
Finally, it is impossible for those of us watching events unfold from afar to fully understand the scale of what people living through conflict experience. Recognising that privilege should encourage empathy rather than indifference. At the very least, it should remind us that wars always have a human cost.