SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
war on terror
War Makes the World Sick... Literally
The body of a single child, wasting away from the lack of the basic fluid that runs in my sink or yours, best captures the way war casualties ripple across time and populations.
Jul 09, 2025
War kills in so many ways. These days, Americans are bombarded with images from Gaza and elsewhere of people or broken bodies being ferried on stretchers from the rubble of homes and hospitals, by rescue workers whose thin bodies and stricken faces suggest they are barely better off than those they’re helping. Social media and journalists make us eyewitnesses to emaciated children too weak to cry. And yet, compared with air raids that crush and bloody instantaneously, a slower disaster, more difficult to capture (especially given our made-for-TikTok attention spans), consists of the hours that many people in war zones spend wasting away from infectious diseases of one sort or another.
Let me count a few of the ways.
In Iraq in 2004, three-month-old Ali tries to cry but he’s too weak to make a sound, since his body has been ravaged by diarrhea. Between 2003 and 2007, half of Iraq’s 18,000 doctors left the country due to the deteriorating security situation (with few intending to return). Health facilities had also been bombed out and destroyed. By then, about two-thirds of the deaths of children under the age of five, like Ali, were due to respiratory infections and diarrhea compounded by malnutrition.
Consider what it would do if someone you loved perished because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time in the storm of war that destroys infrastructure so central to our lives that normally we barely even notice its presence.
In Pakistan in 2017, one of a handful of countries that has yet to eliminate the polio virus, the father of a five-year-old boy is inconsolable when he learns that his son will never walk on his own again. Among displaced people in the Afghan-Pakistani border region where they lived, concerns about counterinsurgency air raids from U.S. and later Pakistani government and opposition forces, security threats toward vaccination teams in conflict-torn parts of that country, and suspicions among parents like that boy’s father that health workers had been sent by the U.S. government to sterilize Pakistani children, all prevented kids from getting the immunizations that they needed.
In Burkina Faso in 2019, three-year-old Abdoulaye dies after contracting malaria while in a shelter for people internally displaced by violence between government forces and Islamic militias. Malnourished and anemic, without direct access to a health clinic, he succumbs to a treatable illness.
In Fayetteville, North Carolina in 2020, as in other military towns across the U.S., rates of sexually transmitted infections like syphilis, herpes simplex, and HIV are among the highest in the country. Bases tend to drive up poverty among civilians by making the surrounding populations dependent on low-wage service work. And stressed-out, war-traumatized American soldiers are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior that spreads disease among the broader population.
In Ukraine in 2023, a soldier treated for severe burns dies of sepsis, despite being given multiple antibiotics. Doctors found klebsiella, a multi-drug-resistant pathogen, in his body. Despite successful efforts by the Ukrainian government to curb antimicrobial resistance in its population prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion, mounting casualties, along with shortages of supplies and personnel, mean that Ukrainian health workers now try to do whatever they can to keep soldiers alive. In the long term, antibiotic-resistant infections traceable to Ukrainian patients are already beginning to appear in places as distant as Japan.
In May 2025 in the Gaza strip, four-month-old Jenan dies from chronic diarrhea after losing half her bodyweight. She needed hypoallergenic milk formula, but aerial bombardments and blockades of basic food and medical supplies have made that once common product scarce. As anthropologist Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins points out, prior to the start of the war between Israel and Hamas in October 2023, cases of diarrhea in young children there averaged about 2,000 per month. In April of the following year, however, such cases already numbered more than 100,000. Likewise, in the decade before the war, there were no large-scale epidemics in Gaza. In just the first seven months of that conflict, however, overcrowding in makeshift shelters, nutritional deficits, shortages of hygiene products—only 1 in every 3 Gazans has soap!—and contaminated water have led to new outbreaks of infectious diseases like measles, cholera, typhoid, and polio, exacerbated by widespread starvation.
At some level, it couldn’t be simpler. War destroys all too many of the modern amenities that make life possible. Preventable illness and death occur even in industrialized settings that are marked by inequality, lack of information, psychological trauma, or just the chaos of combat that hinders long-term thinking. In poor- and middle-income countries like Yemen, Syria, and Nigeria, infectious diseases were already among the top causes of death, even before the outbreak of significant conflicts. Their incidence, however, grew so much worse in wartime, especially among civilians who didn’t have the same access to doctors and medical hospitals as armed groups.
The body of a single child, wasting away from the lack of the basic fluid that runs in my sink or yours, best captures the way war casualties ripple across time and populations. For every soldier who dies in battle, exponentially more people suffer deaths from malnutrition, disease, or trauma-related violence even after battles end. Preventable infections play a large role in this story.
The War on Children
Children are particularly vulnerable to sickness and death in armed conflicts because of their immature immune systems, greater nutritional needs, tendency to succumb more easily to dehydration, and reliance on families who may not even be around to care for them. A study of more than 15,000 armed-conflict events in 35 African countries found that children aged 10 or younger were far more likely to die if they lived within 100 kilometers of a battle zone than they would have in earlier periods of peacetime. Increases in mortality ranged from 3% to about 27%, varying with how many people also died in nearby battles. Strikingly, many more babies under the age of one died annually in the eight years following a conflict’s end than while the battles were going on—infectious disease being a primary killer.
Take Yemen as an example of how war may affect young children and their families over time. Since the start of that country’s civil war in 2015, cholera, a waterborne illness doctors have known how to prevent since 1954, has ravaged the most vulnerable members of that country’s population, particularly children, due to a lack of appropriate sanitation or reasonable access to healthcare. As of December 2017, more than a million people had contracted the disease, nearly half of them children, and more than 2,000 had died of the illness. Compare that to the more than 10,000 Yemenis estimated to have died in direct combat by that time, and you get an idea of how significantly death by illness counts among the casualties of war.
Nearly a decade later, in fact, there are hundreds of thousands of new cases of that illness in Yemen each year and hundreds of annual deaths, making up more than a third of all cases globally. When Rami discovered that his daughters, aged 10 and 7, had cholera, he managed to scrape together the equivalent of about $15 to travel to a clinic so that the family could get lifesaving fluids and information to prevent further cases. Many families like his, however, can’t afford such treatment, forcing all too many of them to delay care or even experience the unthinkable: losing a child.
Consider what it would do if someone you loved perished because they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time in the storm of war that destroys infrastructure so central to our lives that normally we barely even notice its presence. I hope it’s an experience that neither you nor I ever have.
War and Displacement
Still, I think about such things every day, as I bet do many of my colleagues connected to the Costs of War Project. When we first launched that project in 2011, Professors Catherine Lutz, Neta Crawford, and I met with experts in armed conflict to discuss how we would cover the issue of war’s health impacts. Repeatedly, they reminded us of how hard it is to talk about war and health without understanding what it’s like for families to be forced to leave their homes in search of safety.
Unsurprisingly, refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) are uniquely vulnerable to disease and illness. Anyone who has gotten sick while traveling knows that the challenges of getting care are compounded by a lack of knowledge of the community you find yourself in. In the case of today’s more than 122 million war refugees or displaced people, stigma and harassment are frequent travel companions. According to one meta-analysis, more than one-fifth of refugee and IDP women have experienced some form of sexual violence while living in displacement settings. A study of more than 500 immigrants and refugees in Italy found that nearly half experienced physical violence, sexual abuse, harassment, or workplace discrimination.
How did we get to a time when our leaders seem loath to invest in healthcare and don’t even hide their disdain for poor people, a significant number of whom are military personnel and veterans?
The stories that extremist politicians tell about migrants—think of President Donald Trump’s tall tale of supposedly dog- and cat-eating Haitians in Springfield, Ohio—distract us from the social problems such politicians seem unwilling to deal with like loneliness and poverty. Displaced persons lack political clout and voting power in places that host them and, in actual war zones, fighters rarely respect shelters and camps designated for their survival.
For people who flee their homes, the basic boring stuff is lacking, too. Only 35% of refugees have clean drinking water where they live, while less than a fifth of them have access to toilets. Imagine how that would affect all of the higher-order things you value in your life, including gatherings with people you care about, if you couldn’t even find a decent place to wash your hands or brush your teeth!
Most of all, what stands out to me as both a social worker and a scholar of war is how people forced to leave their communities end up losing connections to health providers they trust. I can’t tell you how many individuals I’ve met in clinical and humanitarian settings who had declined to seek care for Covid-19, pneumonia, severe flu symptoms, and other illnesses because they lacked confidence that professionals in their host communities had their best interests at heart.
My Government’s Assault on Public Health
As Republicans in Congress passed a bill that would deprive millions of Americans of health insurance in the near term, as high-level officials spread disinformation about vaccines for once-eradicated illnesses like measles, and as public health workers and officials face threats of violence, all too many poor Americans are starting to experience the sorts of obstacles to healthcare common in war zones.
Meanwhile, with the Trump administration’s decisions earlier this year to fire at least 2,000 U.S. Agency for International Development workers and freeze foreign aid dollars used (in part) to treat and monitor infectious diseases elsewhere on this planet, the threat that a foreign pandemic might make it to this country has grown considerably.
To quote Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) at a recent town hall with constituents worried about losing healthcare, “We are all going to die.” While that is indeed so, it also matters how. A long life with access to basic services like immunizations and clean water is one of the differences between dying like a human being and dying like one of the wild animals I find in my rural area, infected by bacteria in the water or exhausted from heat exposure.
How, I wonder, did we Americans reach a place where many of us are silent or supportive of a strongman’s $45 million birthday military parade that closed roads to residents and commuters for days? How did we get to a time when our leaders seem loath to invest in healthcare and don’t even hide their disdain for poor people, a significant number of whom are military personnel and veterans?
I’m not sure I know what this country stands for anymore. I don’t know about you, but these days America sometimes feels to me like a treacherous foreign land.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran: The Things It Won’t Do to Say
If Thomas Friedman’s fairytale world of light-versus-darkness were to evaporate, less noble motives for U.S. and Israeli actions might be revealed.
Jul 01, 2025
In his unpublished preface to Animal Farm, George Orwell remarks that “the sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that, or the other, but it is ‘not done’ to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was ‘not done’ to mention trousers in the presence of a lady.”
With the Israeli and U.S. aerial invasions of Iran on June 13 and June 21, respectively, the Victorian convention remains intact. There are certain questions it won’t do to ask. Are the invasions legal under international law? Are they morally justified? And who has the right to make those determinations?
These questions would be central in a media sphere that values legal and moral consistency. In Western media, by contrast, asking them is like mentioning trousers before a lady. Political debate focuses instead on U.S. President Donald Trump’s personality flaws or on speculation about whether the bombing will succeed in its stated aims.
It is because the world values democracy and international law that it condemns U.S. foreign policy.
The nearly universal embrace of the Victorian norm is apparent when we consider The New York Times, a liberal paper known for confronting Trump on many matters. In June 2025 the Times published over 40 opinion pieces in which Iran was a central focus. They range from unabashed praise for “Trump’s Courageous and Correct Decision” (6/23/25) to the editorial board’s advice that “America Must Not Rush into a War Against Iran” (6/19/25). Disagreements aside, however, nearly all the writers evidently consider international law irrelevant.
With just one significant exception, the paper’s editors and columnists have ignored the fact that the U.S. and Israeli bombings violate the United Nations Charter, the central document of international law. The charter prohibits the “threat or use of force” by nations that are not under attack or not authorized by the U.N. Security Council. Nor have they mentioned the multiple other international crimes which the U.S. and Israel are committing every day, including the near total blockade on humanitarian aid into Gaza, daily sniper assaults on desperate unarmed people, and deliberate starvation of infants, all part of what U.N. human rights experts and mainstream human rights organizations have long understood as a genocide. (A Times online-only piece by David Wallace-Wells [6/25/25] did cite the genocide findings.)
Furthermore, amid wall-to-wall condemnation of Iran’s possible nuclear ambitions, not a single New York Times editor or opinion writer has noted that the U.S. and Israel are in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions and international treaties requiring them to help establish a “nuclear-weapons-free zone” in the Middle East and to work toward global abolition. There is universal silence on Israel’s refusal to sign the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the fact that it’s the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East (partly enabled by the United States, in violation of multiple laws), and the refusal of the U.S. and Israel to sign the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As the leading international law scholar Richard Falk observed in an earlier era of U.S. debate over Iran, there is “a presumed total irrelevance of international law to the policy debate.”
The Times editors are following precedent. In a detailed study of Times editorial coverage of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Falk and coauthor Howard Friel found that “no space” on the opinion pages “was accorded to the broad array of international law and world-order arguments opposing the war.” The same pattern has long held true for Times coverage of Iran. Pious concern for “the rule of law”—that concept invoked by liberals to criticize Trump’s domestic authoritarianism—usually stops at the water’s edge.
The only significant exception in our Times sample was a guest column by Yale law professor Oona Hathaway (6/24/25). Hathaway notes that the U.S. bombing is an obvious violation of the U.N. Charter’s “prohibition on the unilateral resort to force,” which “is the foundational principle of the postwar legal order.” She further observes that Trump’s decision sets “an example of lawlessness” that further undermines the international rule of law, inviting other rogue actors to do the same. Apart from Hathaway’s commendable exception, only two letters-to-the-editor published on June 23, plus one line in a Peter Beinart column (6/21/25) and one in a Lydia Polgreen column (6/29/25), mentioned that the bombing violates international law.
The Times’ other authors exhibit no such ideological indiscipline. Thomas Friedman, true to form, casts the affair as a war for civilization. U.S.-Israeli aggression is part of “a global struggle between the forces of inclusion and the forces of resistance” (6/23/25). Those who promote “inclusion” include the U.S., Israel, and “pro-American governments,” who are working “to integrate global and regional markets,” as manifested in their enthusiasm for “business conferences, news organizations, elites, investment funds, tech incubators, and major trade routes.” They include Arab dictatorships like the one in Saudi Arabia, where Mohammed bin Salman is boldly remaking his country into “the biggest engine for regional trade, investment, and reform of Islam” (even if he “has made some serious mistakes”). By contrast, the “forces of resistance” want “a world safe for autocracy, safe for theocracy, safe for their corruption; a world free from the winds of personal freedoms, the rule of law, a free press.”
Others are more critical, but keep their criticisms within the bounds of polite Victorian discourse. The editors (6/19/25) urge Trump not to be “dragged into another war in the Middle East, with American lives at stake.” If he wants to bomb Iran, “he should then make the case to the nation for committing American blood and treasure.” Iranian blood and treasure do not merit a place among the possible downsides. Nicholas Kristof (6/23/25) also has reservations about the U.S. bombing, but mainly because of potential costs to the United States. Agreeing with Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, he worries the Iranians could retaliate and “threaten our armed forces in the region.” Why those forces are in the region, or have the right to be, goes unquestioned.
Concerns about legality, when expressed, focus on the lack of authorization from the U.S. Congress. If the president wants war, he should “make the case” to Congress. Unquestioned is the U.S. Congress’ legal right to launch a war, even an “unprovoked” war, as the editorial board observes this one to be. International law is a triviality. In an entire Times “Opinions” podcast (6/27/25) debating the legality of the U.S. bombing, none of the three discussants—Jamelle Bouie, David French, and Carlos Lozada—bothered to consider the legality under international law. The same disdain is nearly pervasive in U.S. political discourse, including in many progressive criticisms of the bombing, from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to Rev. William Barber.
In another episode of the “Opinions” podcast (6/25/25), Times columnist and “hawk” Bret Stephens debated Rosemary Kelanic, a “skeptic.” The interchange was most notable for how the skeptic spent almost as much time agreeing with her opponent as rebutting him. Although she feared the bombing could be “counterproductive” since it gives Iran “a huge incentive to build a bomb” (a self-evident causal relationship long understood by all serious observers), she stressed that Israel is right to “be extremely upset” and blamed Iranian leaders for having “put themselves in this situation.” Israel is justified in “not trusting Iran” because “Iran retaliated and killed Israelis, like, Israel should be mad at Iran.” Translation: It’s reasonable for aggressors to get mad at targets who fire back, provided the aggressors are on our side.
Kelanic also endorses Stephens’s labeling of Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.” This is a point of consensus among Stephens the hawk, Kelanic the dove, and debate moderator David Leonhardt. Leonhardt’s own intervention is telling given his position as Times editorial director. At one point he soliloquizes that Iran is “a malevolent force in the world that’s killed a lot of Americans.” The weakening of Iran and its regional allies is thus cause for rejoicing. “I look at that as an American,” he says, and it “cheers me in some ways.” Since Iran “has really caused a lot of pain and suffering over the last several decades,” its weakened condition makes it “much less able to cause that suffering.”
Leonhardt accidentally identifies part of the problem: The editorial director at the world’s leading newspaper views world affairs “as an American”—through the lens of nationalist exceptionalism, not through a set of universal standards applied equally to all actors. Were he to remove his nationalist blinders and behold the actual record of “the last several decades,” Leonhardt might reach different conclusions about the sources of “pain and suffering.”
He would, for example, see the facts compiled by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, which estimates that wars since September 11, 2001 have killed “at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting” through direct and indirect violence. Most of those people have been killed in wars that the U.S. government bears primary responsibility for initiating or enabling, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Yemen. The U,S. lead is even starker if we include the mass extermination of Palestinians since October 2023, which is not part of the Watson Institute data. No Western or Israeli intelligence agency has alleged that Iran’s violence against Western or Israeli personnel, retaliatory or otherwise, has produced even 1% of that death count. It takes real fealty to state doctrine to see Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
Shedding the nationalist blinders would also reveal key facts about the U.S. and Israeli bombing of Iran. Iranian human rights group HRANA reports that Israel’s bombing “targeted infrastructures, military and civilian facilities, residential areas, and industrial sites in 25 provinces,” killing a minimum of 865 people, of whom at least 363 were civilians. Civilian death estimates were mentioned only twice, in passing, in our New York Times sample (6/24/25 and 6/28/25).
A researcher not confined by nationalism might also consider global opinion, based on the novel idea that people’s preferences should matter in a democratic world. Leonhardt self-identifies as “someone who favors democracy” (6/25/25), yet this approach somehow escapes him. A key source would be the annual Democracy Perception Index (DPI). In the 2025 edition, released in May, people in 76 of the 96 countries surveyed “have a more positive view of China” than of the United States. Of major global leaders, “Donald Trump stands out with the most universally negative image,” with 82% of countries giving Trump a “net negative rating,” versus 61% for Russian President Vladimir Putin and 44% for Chinese President Xi Jinping.
It’s not that people disagree with the U.S.’ professed ideals of democracy and rule of law—just the opposite. Most respondents in almost every country say democracy is “very” or “extremely important.” Most also favor the idea of a “rules-based world order.” People in 85% of countries, including the United States, say all countries “should follow international laws and agreements, even if it limits their freedom of action.” Yet surveys by DPI and many other pollsters show that the world views the United States as the top threat to democracy and peace. It is because the world values democracy and international law that it condemns U.S. foreign policy.
These findings would be important considerations for anyone who “favors democracy” and “rule of law.” But in our political culture they are inappropriate for well-mannered debate, like mentioning trousers with a lady present.
Asking impertinent questions about legality and morality could, of course, spark unhealthy scrutiny of U.S.-Israeli objectives. If Thomas Friedman’s fairytale world of light-versus-darkness were to evaporate, less noble motives for U.S. and Israeli actions might be revealed: Western control of resources, the preservation of ethno-racial supremacy in Greater Israel, and the need to eliminate all who oppose those goals. All things it won’t do to say.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Busting the Myth of Trump as an Anti-War President
Trump's vision is of a world where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. It has nothing to do with peace.
Jun 24, 2025
It’s been said that Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel’s war with Iran underscores his failures as a peacemaker. This is a preposterous statement because the idea of Trump being “a peacemaker and unifier” has always been nothing short of preposterous.
Yes, long before his ascendance to the White House, Trump had managed to paint him as a peacemaker, promising to end America’s “endless wars.” But most people in the United States of Amnesia seem to have forgotten that during his first four-year tenure in the White House Trump embarked on a dangerous path with a series of reckless foreign policy decisions that threatened peace and made the world a far more dangerous place. Trump 1.0 walked away from an Iran deal and withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty while U.S. air wars became broader and “increasingly indiscriminate.” Iraq, Somalia, and Syria were among the countries that Trump loosened the rules of engagement for U.S. forces. Trump also ordered the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and threatened “fire and fury” against North Korea.In addition, Trump increased tensions between Israelis and Palestinians by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas said at the time that Trump’s decision undermined all peace efforts and called his actions “a crime,” while the political leader of the Hamas movement, Ismail Haniya, who was assassinated by the Israeli Mossad in Tehran on July 31, 2024, called for a new “intifada.” Shortly upon assuming the Office of the President of the United States for the second time, Trump embarked on a jingoistic journey by threatening to take over Greenland (an idea he had floated back in 2019), make Canada the 51st state, reclaim the Panama Canal, and attack Mexico. And just as he had done during his first term in office, he withdrew the U.S. from the landmark Paris climate agreement, even though the climate crisis is an existential one and is expected to increase the risk of armed conflict.
So much for Trump being a peacemaker.
Trump is also a notorious braggart. He repeatedly said that he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours upon taking office and boasted that the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas militants would not have happened if he were president. Yet, five months into his second term in the White House and all that Trump has accomplished in connection with the war in Ukraine is to receive Putin’s middle finger. With regard to Gaza, of course, there is no difference between “genocide Joe” and Trump. Biden funded and armed the Israeli genocide of Palestinians in Gaza while Trump has not only continued to provide Israel with the weapons that is using to slaughter innocent people, mostly women and children, but has floated a plan to “clean out” Gaza and move Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan.
It is hilarious to see Trump’s decision to join Israel in its war with Iran as some sort of a setback in his quest to become a global peacemaker. Trump was never a peacemaker and, in fact, has always been a warmonger. His politics in general, both domestic and foreign, has never been about the pursuit of unity but rather about sowing seeds of division.
Trump’s view of international order is one based on pure power politics and the fear factor. As such, coercion, intimidation, violence and ultimately war are the means through which he understands that U.S. dominance in the international system can be maintained and reinforced. It’s a vision of a world where the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Nonetheless, let’s not have any illusions that today’s world is the world that Trump himself has somehow created. We live in a dark world because the powers that be are fundamentally dark forces in themselves, and the most powerful nations call the shots on the international stage. And this is not to imply that the rest of the world is occupied by saintly creatures. Horrendous governments, religious fanatics and extremists of every twisted stripe ready and willing to engage in bloodshed are in plenty supply across the world. But none bears greater responsibility for international injustices and conflicts across the world than the country that stands as the most powerful actor in the world since the end of the Second World War.
Take the U.S. war on terror, which started following the September 11 attacks in 2001. It has been a disaster on multiple fronts. With the U.S. carrying out anti-terror measures in a total of 85 countries, nearly one million people were killed as a result of combat operations, almost 400,000 of them civilians, while an estimated 3.6-3.8 million “died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones,” according to the “Cost of War” project of Brown University.
There is little doubt that NATO, led by the U.S., provoked Russia into invading Ukraine in 2022. The U.S. and its allies have also repeatedly sabotaged possibilities for peace after Russia's invasion. Three years and four months after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, there is still no potential for a negotiated end to the war. Nearly 630 days since Israel launched a retaliatory incursion into Gaza, and the slaughtering of innocent people continues on a daily basis as part of what has been widely recognized, even by leading Israeli Holocaust and genocide scholars such as Omer Bartov and Raz Segal, to be an outright genocidal campaign by the neo-fascist Benjamin Netanyahu government. None of this horror would be happening if it were not for the full support provided to Netanyahu’s government by the United States and, to a lesser extent, by some of its key allies. Americans and Europeans alike have as much Palestinian blood on their hands as the Israelis themselves.
Notwithstanding interstate cooperation and the evolution of international law, the international system remains fundamentally anarchic. One of the most important provisions in the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the organization. As a global hegemon, the U.S. has consistently sough to assert its dominant position internationally by acting in violation of the Charter. The use of force against Iran, both by Israel and the U.S., is in clear violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and amounts therefore to a crime of aggression. Yet, there is no international authority to punish Israel and the U.S. for their unlawful actions. Not only that, but both the U.S. presidency and U.S. lawmakers, as well as Israel’s intelligence agencies, are audacious enough to threaten an independent international organization like the International Criminal Court for pursuing international justice. Both Israel and the U.S. feel exempt from accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide simply because of their overwhelming military power and because of the lack of an overarching authority to enforce rules.
And then, of course, there is Europe’s hypocrisy over Israeli and U.S. aggression against Iran. Consider, for example, the pathetic response of G7 leaders to the conflict between Israel and Iran, which started with the former launching blistering attacks on the latter’s nuclear and military structure. Instead of condemning the Netanyahu government for engaging in yet another display of state-sponsored terrorism by “bombing its way to a new neighborhood” as part of a strategic plan to change the face of the Middle East, the leaders of some of the world’s major liberal democracies issued a statement asserting that Israel has the right to defend itself, thereby endorsing its actions, and identified Iran as “the principle source of regional instability and terror.” If propaganda is the intentional twisting of facts, the European Union’s (EU) response to Israel’s crime of aggression against Iran is so surreal that it doesn’t even qualify as propaganda.
The EU’s response to the U.S. strikes on Iran was equally astonishing and jaw-dropping. No European leader dared to condemn Donald Trump’s strikes on Iran. In fact, German chancellor Friedrich Merz said outright that “there is no reason to criticize” either U.S. or Israeli bombing of Iran. But as the Brussels-based foreign policy expert and non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft Eldar Mamedov pointed out “This hypocrisy does more than expose EU moral posturing -- it actively erodes the foundations of international law and the much-vaunted ‘rules-based international order.”’
And then one wonders why there is such strong anti-establishment sentiment in contemporary democracies.
Be that as it may, it is about time that we put an end to the myth of Trump as the “peacemaker” president. He is a warmonger as well as a serial liar and a world-class hypocrite.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular