The US-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran has entered its third week. The bill keeps rising, the goals are fuzzy, and any sensible exit ramps are nowhere to be found. Instead of giving up, we should be pushing hard to end this self-inflicted damage.
No solid legal or moral case for this war
Iran did not carry out an attack that justified a defensive war. The main argument offered by Washington was preventive - that Iran must be stopped before it builds a nuclear weapon or expands its missile capacity. Preventive bombing is legally shaky under the UN charter, and if allowed would make war a much easier option for any state with worries. Even under that weak logic, the bombing campaign has not been a success.
Air dominance, but to what end?
US and Israeli forces quickly knocked out Iran's air defenses and gained control of the skies. That means they can bomb with impunity. Israel says there are many targets remaining, and Netanyahu talks about continuing the strikes. At the same time, Trump has told reporters there is "practically nothing left to target." So we have air superiority and little to show for it besides destruction.
Different endgames, same damage
Washington and Jerusalem are not aiming for the same finish line. Israel appears to want to weaken and disorient Iran so it cannot respond quickly. The US seems to be gambling on a different approach - hoping to change the regime or install a government more aligned with American interests. Those are very different strategies, and neither has produced stability.
Bombing has strengthened hardliners
The first strike killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Some Iranian figures briefly considered a more moderate path that might have led to negotiation, but the bombing pushed power toward hardliners. Khamenei's son was chosen as the new supreme leader, a move that signals continuity of the old course rather than a turn toward compromise.
Israel then killed Ali Larijani, a senior security official known for trying to bridge hardliners and moderates. He was someone who might have pushed for a ceasefire. His death makes a negotiated stop to the fighting less likely and helps those who want the war to continue.
Military results are mixed and costly
The strikes have damaged Iran's long-range missile capability, but Tehran still has many drones and shorter-range missiles that continue to strike Gulf states that host US bases. Iran has used mines and fast boats to limit passage through the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting a large share of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments and driving prices up.
Claims that Iran's nuclear program was obliterated are premature. Officials say canisters of highly enriched uranium may be buried deep underground. Recovering and securing such material would require a long and risky ground operation, not a quick raid.
The human cost is staggering
Civilians have paid a terrible price. In the worst single incident, a US missile struck a girls elementary school, killing about 168 people, mostly students. The Pentagon described the explanation as outdated targeting data, which reads as a poor excuse given that the school and its public spaces were visible on satellite images and had an online presence for years.
Military forces must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm. Evidence so far suggests those precautions were inadequate. The US defense secretary publicly emphasized "lethality" over cautious legal safeguards and has cut funding for civilian-harm assessment programs.
Israel's strikes on fuel depots outside Tehran released toxic fumes and soot that affected millions of residents. The World Health Organization has recorded multiple attacks on health care, with deaths among medical staff. Attacking hospitals and disrupting care carries a high human cost and violates basic protections in armed conflict.
Political and economic fallout
There is a real risk that Iran will claim victory simply by surviving the bombing. The regime has shown it will use severe repression to stay in power. Calls from the US for Iranians to rise up ignore that painful history.
Economically, the conflict is already hurting ordinary people. Higher fuel prices and market disruption could have political consequences, including in the US midterms. Gulf states that have relied on their security partnership with Washington have been exposed as vulnerable.
Public support for Israel in the United States fell sharply after previous conflicts, and the current campaign in Iran has further damaged perceptions. Key allies in Europe and North America are alarmed. Some of them are now warming to closer ties with China, which is an odd diplomatic achievement for Washington given China's own human rights record.
Requests for allied military help to secure tankers in the Strait of Hormuz have produced limited results. Threats to make NATO support conditional on participation in this offensive campaign were met with cool responses from members who see NATO as a defensive alliance.
Time to end the experiment in open-ended bombing
The costs of this war are adding up: civilian lives, economic pain, weakened alliances, and political risk. The campaign has not achieved clear strategic gains and has strengthened forces in Tehran that oppose negotiation. At some point those promoting continued bombing have to answer what victory looks like and who will pay the price.
It is still possible to stop this before the damage becomes permanent. The simple choice is to reject the idea of a forever war pushed by leaders who benefit from nonstop fighting, and instead pursue clear objectives, accountability for civilian harm, and real diplomatic off-ramps.
