America's double standards sometimes reach a truly appalling level. The US constantly presents itself as the world's defender of human rights — yet when the bodies pile up, human lives don’t seem to count.
On February 28 — the first day of joint US-Israel strikes on Iran — a girls' elementary school in Minab, in southern Iran, was hit. Local officials reported at least 175 deaths. More than 160 of the dead were female pupils.
Washington's first move was to dodge responsibility entirely. Trump suggested the school had been struck by inaccurate Iranian munitions. On March 7, aboard Air Force One, he told reporters: "In my opinion, based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran."
As the controversy grew, Trump changed his tune and claimed ignorance. Then Iran released images of missile debris recovered from the scene — clearly showing a US-made Tomahawk cruise missile, with the words "Made in USA" visibly inscribed on it.
Evidence Written on the Missile
Trump still dug in on March 9. At a press conference in Miami, asked directly whether it was a Tomahawk cruise missile that struck the girls' school, he insisted: "A Tomahawk is very generic. It's sold to other countries. Iran has some Tomahawks, and they want more. But whether it's Iran or somebody else, a Tomahawk is very commonly used." He added that the matter was under investigation.
Those claims were clearly baseless. Neither Iran nor Israel possesses Tomahawk missiles — the United States is effectively the sole operator. Tomahawk exports are strictly controlled; aside from the US, reportedly only Australia and the United Kingdom field these missiles, and there is absolutely no possibility either would sell them to Iran.
In the end, The New York Times — citing a preliminary US military investigation — reported that the girls' school was indeed struck by US forces. Military intelligence personnel had relied on outdated targeting data, mistaking the school for an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility. Tomahawk cruise missiles finished the job, causing devastating casualties.
What makes it worse: the US military carried out a double-tap strike. A second attack arrived just minutes after the first hit on the school — a tactic classically associated with killing first responders. With the evidence overwhelming and the truth impossible to conceal, the US appears to have pre-emptively leaked the findings, acknowledging responsibility in hopes of containing the fallout.
A Front Page the World Won't Forget
The damage is done regardless. Striking an elementary school with cruise missiles has outraged people around the world. Iran's English-language newspaper, the Tehran Times, ran portraits of the more than 160 dead schoolgirls across its entire front page, under the headline: "Trump, Look Them in the Eyes."
Whether intentional or the result of faulty intelligence, this attack may well constitute a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 8 of the Rome Statute lays out the key conditions clearly.
I. Existence of Armed Conflict
There must be an international armed conflict, and the act must be closely related to that conflict. Ordinary domestic disturbances do not qualify.
II. Victims Must Be Protected Persons
The targets must not be persons directly participating in hostilities — such as civilians, the wounded, and prisoners of war. Protected civilian property, including hospitals and schools, falls under the same prohibition.
III. Serious Violation of International Law
The act must constitute a grave breach of international humanitarian law. It must also have been criminalised under treaty or customary law.
The United States launched a war without UN authorisation — a serious violation of international law — and then missile-struck children who should be protected under the laws of armed conflict. That conduct is potentially criminal as a war crime. Washington readily intervenes in the affairs of other nations for all manner of reasons, yet brushes its own crimes aside with barely a word.
Make no mistake: no US military personnel will be held accountable for this massacre of Iranian schoolchildren. Not the intelligence officers who gathered the faulty data. Not the heads of the relevant intelligence agencies. Not the generals who ordered strikes in that area. Not the Secretary of Defense. Not the President himself.
This episode carries a pointed message for Hong Kong. When those who have fled abroad continue to eagerly seek meetings with senior US government officials, urging them to keep sanctioning Hong Kong officials or demanding the release of Jimmy Lai, they would do well to remember: these American officials have blood on their hands. They start wars against other countries without justification.
Lo Wing-hung
Bastille Commentary
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
The United States today is undeniably far less impressive than it was 40 years ago.
Back in 1983, when I was in college, a political science class focused specifically on the US government’s successful decision-making during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Harvard professor Graham Allison, later renowned for his theory of Thucydides Trap - The Rise of Great Powers, published a detailed article analyzing how the US managed to resolve this severe crisis so swiftly.
In 1962, at the height of the US-Soviet Cold War, the Soviets planned to deploy ballistic missiles in Cuba, right next to the US, in response to America’s missile deployments in Italy and Turkey. Then-President John F. Kennedy boldly imposed a naval blockade on Cuba, showing extraordinary courage and resolve. His actions ultimately forced the Soviets to withdraw their nuclear missiles. Allison praised the US decision-making in that episode as a model of democracy combined with high efficiency.
Those were truly America’s golden years. Kennedy became president at 43, successfully defused the Cuban Missile Crisis, but was assassinated just a year later at the age of 45. The prevailing US view then was that socialist regimes produced only aging leadership and could never match the youthful energy and efficiency of the capitalist system.
Time has marched on. The country once led by young leaders is now locked in the hands of elders. President Donald Trump is 79, older than Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev when he died at 75—someone the US once criticized fiercely. Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran is widely judged by scholars at home and abroad as a costly misstep.
Bloomberg reported on April 8 that Trump’s military action against the Iranian regime proved "a serious strategic failure." Rather than weakening rivals, it bolstered China and Russia, eroded America’s advantages, and ultimately positioned Iran as the strategic winner. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps remains intact, Iran keeps control over the Strait of Hormuz, and the US "failed to achieve any military objectives."
The New York Times published a detailed feature on April 7 titled "How Trump Pulled the US Into a War With Iran." The report uncovers the inner workings of the decision and shows how, amid internal disagreements and repeated warnings, Trump ultimately chose war based largely on intuition. White House reporters Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman tracked this process closely. They highlight a pivotal moment on February 11, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House and aggressively pitched the plan to attack Iran in the White House Situation Room.
During a one-hour briefing, Netanyahu and Mossad chief David Barnea pressed Trump hard. They argued Iran was vulnerable to regime change and that a combined US-Israeli strike could topple the Islamic Republic. Netanyahu outlined what they saw as near-certain conditions for victory, including:
1. Destroying Iran’s ballistic missile program within weeks;
2. Weakening the Iranian regime enough to prevent it from blockading the Strait of Hormuz;
Third, the chance of Iran hitting US interests through neighboring countries was judged extremely low;
Fourth, street protests within Iran would flare again, and with Israeli intelligence agencies stirring things up, intense bombing could create an opening for Iranian opposition forces to topple the regime;
Fifth, Israel also suggested that Iranian Kurdish armed groups might cross from Iraq into Iran to open a ground front.
Trump responded at the time, saying, "Sounds good."
The day after the meeting—February 12—a briefing was held in the White House Situation Room with only US officials attending, who divided Netanyahu's proposals into four parts:
First, a decapitation strike—the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei;
Second, to weaken Iran's missile projection capabilities and its threats to neighboring countries;
Third, to spark large-scale protests among the Iranian people;
Fourth, regime change, with a secular leader taking control of Iran.
US officials judged that the first two objectives could be achieved through American intelligence and military power. However, the third and fourth goals promoted by Netanyahu—mass protests and regime change—are divorced from reality.
CIA Director Ratcliffe called the "fantasy of regime change" absurd and laughable. Secretary of State Rubio bluntly dismissed it as "complete nonsense." The top military leader, Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine, told Trump, "In my experience, this is basically Israel’s usual play—they tend to exaggerate, but their plans aren’t always flawless."
However, Trump remained interested in the first two objectives: a decapitation strike and weakening Iran's military strength.
In the days that followed, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Caine presented Trump with a stark military assessment. He warned that a large-scale strike against Iran would severely deplete US weapons stockpiles, including interceptor missiles already strained by support for Israel and Ukraine. Caine also highlighted the risks of Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz and the enormous challenges the US would face in securing the Gulf region.
Trump dismissed these warnings, convinced the Iranian regime would surrender before such consequences materialized. He was likely influenced by the previous year's US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, expecting this war to be just as brief.
Nevertheless, Trump was increasingly resolved to strike Iran. Meanwhile, peace talks between the US and Iran were still underway. The turning point came in late February, when new intelligence from US and Israeli agencies revealed that Iran’s supreme leader Khamenei and other senior officials would soon meet in a ground-level building. This would leave Khamenei fully exposed to an airstrike—an opportunity US and Israeli officials believed was fleeting and unlikely to recur.
On February 26, the White House Situation Room convened for a final discussion. Many expressed doubts about going to war, including Vice President Vance, who told Trump, “You know I think this is a bad idea, but if you want to do it, I’ll support you.” Joint Chiefs Chairman Caine withheld clear endorsement and focused on risk warnings. The strongest advocate was Defense Secretary Esper, who argued if the Iran issue is going to be resolved sooner or later, better to do it now. Ultimately, Trump made the strike decision impulsively, relying on his gut instinct.
The New York Times report exposes critical flaws in decision-making at the highest levels of the United States government. Although most advisors believed striking Iran was unwise, no one dared truly oppose Trump’s imperial-style leadership. Trump behaved like a stubborn, glory-seeking elder focused only on immediate gains—much like a retail investor chasing quick profits in the stock market. His choice dragged the US into a deep quagmire it still struggles to escape. Forty years ago, the US criticized socialist countries for flawed decision-making; today, those same issues have surfaced within America itself.
Lo Wing-hung
