ABNA24 - A civilian population must never be treated as an instrument through which political or military concessions are extracted. The deliberate destruction of the systems upon which millions of civilians depend cannot be justified as ordinary military pressure.The United States and Israel entered their unprovoked war against Iran claiming that the military campaign was guided by clear and limited strategic objectives.
Yet, as the conflict has unfolded, those objectives have repeatedly shifted. This reveals an alarming absence of a coherent political strategy, a responsible endgame and any credible commitment to regional peace.
At the beginning, the declared objective was presented as the elimination of Iran's alleged nuclear threat.
The narrative then expanded to include the destruction of Iran's missile capabilities, the weakening of its armed forces, the dismantling of its regional influence, the crippling of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and eventually the promotion of regime change.
When these sweeping ambitions proved difficult to achieve, the stated objectives shifted again.
The war was increasingly presented as an effort to guarantee freedom of navigation, control developments in the Strait of Hormuz, protect maritime trade, impose a blockade and force Iran into negotiations from a position of weakness.
Now, the United States has widened its attacks to include Iran's strategic and civilian infrastructure.
Recent strikes have reportedly hit bridges, ports, transportation facilities, logistics centers, energy installations, airports and communications-related assets. The attacks on Bandar Abbas, Chabahar, bridges in Hormozgan and other essential facilities demonstrate that the campaign is moving beyond narrowly defined military targets.
The apparent objective is increasingly clear: to destroy Iran's physical connectivity,disrupt transportation networks, isolate cities and provinces, weaken economic activity and interfere with the movement of people, food, medicine, energy and essential supplies.
The targeting of bridges, ports, railway connections, airports and road networks can divide a country internally. It can obstruct emergency services, delay humanitarian assistance, damage commercial supply chains and impose immense suffering on ordinary civilians.
At the same time, attacks on communications, surveillance systems, digital networks and telecommunications infrastructure appear designed to disrupt Iran's information connectivity.
US Cyber Command has previously acknowledged operations against Iranian communications and sensor systems. Reports have also described extensive cyber operations and severe disruptions affecting internet access, communications, media and public services during the war.
This represents a deeply dangerous escalation.
Connectivity is a fundamental requirement of modern civilian life. Hospitals depend upon telecommunications and electricity. Emergency services depend upon functioning transport networks. Families depend upon telephone and internet services to locate loved ones. Businesses, schools, banks, food distribution systems and public agencies depend upon stable digital and physical infrastructure.
Destroying connectivity therefore does not merely weaken a government or military. It can paralyze an entire society.
The attacks also threaten Iran's energy security. Damage to energy facilities, electricity networks, transportation infrastructure and ports can produce cascading consequences across the country. Iran has already reported growing pressure on its electricity system amid extreme heat and infrastructural damage.
This suggests that the evolving objective may be to make normal civilian life increasingly difficult, weaken public morale and generate internal pressure against the Iranian government.
Such a strategy amounts to collective punishment.
A civilian population must never be treated as an instrument through which political or military concessions are extracted. The deliberate destruction of the systems upon which millions of civilians depend cannot be justified as ordinary military pressure.
The shifting objectives of the war now follow a disturbingpattern:
First, nuclear facilities.
Then, missile and defense capabilities.
Then, Iran's political leadership and governing institutions.
Then, the Strait of Hormuz and maritime routes.
Now, bridges, ports, transportation networks, energy systems and national connectivity.
Each new objective appears after the earlier justification fails to produce the political result demanded by Washington and Tel Aviv.
This is not strategic flexibility.
It is policy drift backed by overwhelming military force.
Wars should never be initiated without clearly defined political objectives, achievable military goals, realistic assessments of human and economic costs and credible exit strategies.
When governments repeatedly redefine their objectives during an ongoing conflict, they undermine their own credibility while increasing uncertainty for allies, adversaries and the international community.
The widening of targets also raises serious questions under international humanitarian law.
Civilian infrastructure may not be attacked merely because its destruction could place economic or psychological pressure upon an adversary. Parties to a conflict remain obligated to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects, to observe proportionality and to take precautions to minimize civilian harm.
Bridges, ports, power systems, telecommunications networks and transport facilities frequently serve civilian populations on a vast scale. Their destruction can have consequences far beyond the immediate location of an attack.
The consequences of this policy drift are profound.
Every expansion of the target list prolongs military confrontation, increases civilian casualties, damages livelihoods, destabilizes the region, disrupts global trade, raises energy prices and increases the risk of a wider international war.
The war is also creating a dangerous cycle of retaliatory attacks against infrastructure throughout the region.Iran has responded by striking facilities and targets in states hosting or supporting American military operations. This growing exchange places the entire Gulf region at risk.
The international community must therefore reject the normalization of infrastructure warfare.
Destroying the foundations of civilian life is not a pathway to diplomacy. It produces anger, fear, deprivation and prolonged instability.
A responsible foreign policy is measured by consistency, proportionality, respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law and commitment to peaceful conflict resolution.
It is not measured by the number of bombs dropped, bridges destroyed, ports blockaded or communication systems disabled.
The repeated shifting of war aims raises a fundamental question:
Was this war launched with a realistic political strategy, or is policy now being improvised according to battlefield developments, domestic political pressure and the inability to compel Iran's surrender?
History repeatedly demonstrates that wars initiated without clear and achievable objectives often become costly strategic failures.
The expansion from alleged nuclear disarmament to the systematic weakening of Iran's national infrastructure shows that the war is no longer limited, defensive or preventive.
It is becoming a campaign to cripple a sovereign state.
The world must demand an immediate end to attacks on civilian infrastructure, transportation networks, communications systems, energy facilities, ports and other essential services.
Iran's civilian population must not be isolated, disconnected and deprived as part of a coercive military strategy.
The world deserves diplomacy, accountability and international law, not an ever-changing list of war objectives that places millions of lives and the stability of an entire region at risk.
/129
A civilian population must never be treated as an instrument through which political or military concessions are extracted. The deliberate destruction of the systems upon which millions of civilians depend cannot be justified as ordinary military pressure.
Your Comment