The renewed and joint aggression by the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran—precisely in the midst of political negotiations—has no meaning other than the precedence of the logic of force and brutality over diplomacy and dialogue. At a time when diplomatic channels were intensely engaged in consultations and in designing frameworks to achieve agreement and understanding, opening a new front and initiating aggressive military action effectively amounts to preferring violent mechanisms. What elevates this action beyond the level of mere military tension, however, is the manner and targets of the attacks: a focus on urban fabric and civilian infrastructure. Although Trump had previously spoken of a “limited strike,” what actually occurred on the ground was the targeting of facilities such as a girls’ elementary school, a hospital, and residential centers.

The attack on a girls’ elementary school in Minab, resulting in the martyrdom and injury of more than 180 schoolchildren, as well as the assault on Gandhi Hospital and the harm inflicted on hospitalized newborns there, is not a “collateral error,” but a sign of entering a dangerous phase of urban warfare—a phase in which the boundary between the military front and the everyday lives of people effectively disappears. In international humanitarian law, the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets is a foundational rule—enshrined in the Geneva Conventions—which prohibits attacks on schools and medical centers. These locations are not only civilian, but they also enjoy special protection.

Urban warfare—especially when accompanied by the bombing of residential areas and vital infrastructure—imposes the greatest cost on civilians. Schools and hospitals are symbols of life and the future; targeting them is not merely the destruction of a building, but a blow to a society’s psychological security and to the future of a generation that must be shielded from violence. Bitter experiences, including the two-year-long crimes of the Zionists in the killing of defenseless people in Gaza, have shown that the enemy seeks to normalize such crimes and, relying on fascistic rhetoric, attempts to portray these atrocities as natural and inevitable.

In such circumstances, silence or ambiguous reactions from international bodies can inadvertently contribute to the continuation of this trend. The United Nations, and especially the United Nations Security Council, bear the responsibility to use their mechanisms to halt attacks on civilians, establish an immediate ceasefire, and dispatch independent fact-finding missions. The International Criminal Court can also, within its jurisdiction, pursue an examination of the potential responsibility of those involved in attacking civilian targets.

On the other hand, experience has shown that the political will of governments is often shaped under the pressure of public opinion. Today, global public opinion, the media, academics, and civil society institutions play a decisive role. If attacks on schools and hospitals do not meet with a broad global response, there is a risk that such behavior will become a normalized part of regional conflicts—a situation that would carry grave consequences not only for Iran, but for the entire international system.

What is now unfolding is a historic test for the global legal order. Do the principles established after the catastrophes of the twentieth century to protect civilians still possess effective force? Or do they fade in the face of political calculations? If the world’s response to the targeting of children in schools and newborns in hospitals is not firm and grounded in law, the concept of “civilian immunity” will gradually be emptied of meaning.

When human lives—especially those of children, newborns, and civilians—are harmed beneath the rubble of blatant and savage aggression, the responsibility of the international community is doubled: to immediately halt attacks on civilian targets, to guarantee access to humanitarian aid, and to condemn the party that has violated the fundamental rules of humanity. Defending schoolchildren and sick newborns hospitalized in medical centers is not a political stance, but the minimum moral and legal obligation of the international community.