04/04/2026
Imagine, for a moment, if Iran had bombed and destroyed a landmark like the Golden Gate Bridge in California. The reaction would be immediate and unanimous—the word “terrorism” would dominate headlines across the world. Now flip the scenario. When a similar act happens elsewhere, the language suddenly shifts, and narratives become more complicated, often framed under strategy, defense, or even “peace.”
This contrast raises an uncomfortable but important question: are we consistent in how we define such actions? Under international humanitarian law, attacks must strictly distinguish between civilian and military targets, and any destruction must be justified by clear military necessity and proportionality.
History has shown that even the destruction of bridges can be judged as a war crime when it causes disproportionate harm to civilians or serves to spread fear.
Ultimately, the debate isn’t just about one event—it’s about accountability, consistency, and how the world chooses to define justice.
