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 Military intelligence personnel had relied on outdated targeting data, mistaking the school for an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility.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. **
Trump has done it again — he has pushed back the negotiation deadline. This time, he did not even bother setting a new one. He said only that, at the request of mediator Pakistan, he agreed to extend the ceasefire with Iran until Tehran submits its proposal and completes the relevant consultations.
Trump has apparently grown tired of his own deadlines. So this time, he simply stopped making them. The reality is, a "deadline" that can be postponed indefinitely is not a deadline at all — and once that coercive power is gone, the other side has no reason to rush.
Trump is trapped. He has no clear path to victory if he fights, yet he is unwilling to make concessions for peace. On the military side, the original plan was to strike if no agreement was reached by the deadline — but the war has now dragged on for a month and a half. America knows its weapons and ammunition stockpiles are limited, while Iran appears to have an inexhaustible supply of missiles.
Without deploying ground troops, what real chance does the US have from long-range bombardment alone? And if ground troops are deployed, the risks are enormous — Afghanistan is a cautionary tale that needs no elaboration.
On the diplomatic front, Trump cannot stomach the conditions Iran has put forward. Caught in the middle with no way forward or back, he has become the butt of a "Donald's Art of War" joke. When Donald Trump himself does not know what his own strategy is, his adversaries certainly cannot figure it out either.
Trump has repeatedly insisted that the US and Iran are close to a deal — and the two sides have indeed narrowed their differences. But key sticking points remain unresolved. Three main areas of dispute have emerged.
First: The Strait of Hormuz
Iran's hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps demanded that the US first lift its blockade of Iranian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz before resuming negotiations. Trump refused. That is why the second round of talks never got off the ground.
On the question of future transit rights through the strait, Iranian sources revealed that the US proposed joint management of the waterway — a proposal Iran flatly rejected. Iran insists on retaining full control and claims the right to collect tolls from vessels passing through. Analysts suggest Iran is not simply fighting over symbolic sovereignty. Because the US has refused to offer any compensation for starting the war without justification, Iran is demanding toll revenues as a form of reparations.
Reports also suggest the US floated an alternative proposal: having Gulf states pay compensation to Iran instead. Trump is not one for principles — as long as America does not foot the bill, he would likely find that easier to accept. The question is whether the Gulf states are willing to play the role of the fall guy.
Second: Unfreezing Iranian Assets
Iran initially demanded the unfreezing of its assets as a precondition for talks, but later dropped that insistence. Iranian sources indicated that the US has agreed to release US$6 billion in frozen funds held in Qatar — but Iran is asking for US$20 billion. This appears to be the area where Washington is most willing to make concessions, though Trump has not moved ahead of a final agreement.
Third: Uranium Enrichment
This is the central sticking point. Both sides have drawn their red lines, and the two positions barely overlap. The US demands Iran completely abandon its nuclear programme; Iran refuses.
Trump has suggested that under the proposed ceasefire agreement, Iran would transfer its enriched uranium abroad, with both countries cooperating on a thorough inspection of Iran's uranium stockpile. Iran, however, has made clear it will not accept any proposal to remove enriched uranium from its territory. Iran insists it is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons — but maintains it has every right to continue enrichment activities on its own soil.
Talks had once moved into the stage of exchanging draft texts — a sign that both sides were already haggling over specific wording. The gaps may not be as wide as widely assumed; for instance, there are reportedly no major disagreements over lifting sanctions on Iran. But after the US doubled down on its insistence to blockade Iranian ports last Friday, relations deteriorated rapidly. Iran hardened its stance and became unwilling to return to the negotiating table at all.
Trump now stands frozen at a crossroads, unsure of which way to turn. Most observers believe continuing this war is deeply damaging to him. Since March, his approval ratings have collapsed across the board — every key policy area has simultaneously swung negative, and the declines have been steep. If the war drags on to the November midterm elections, Republicans face not only a very strong chance of losing control of the House, but potentially the Senate as well.
The latest polls, measured by net approval ratings on specific issues, tell a grim story. On "inflation and prices," Trump's net approval has plunged to minus 35 — an outright collapse. On "jobs and the economy," it has fallen to minus 20. On "foreign policy," it sits at minus 18. Across the board, his numbers have swung from positive to deeply negative — a clear harbinger of a Republican wipeout.
The military picture is no less bleak. With ammunition supplies running low, a US victory looks increasingly remote. Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson disclosed on a podcast that at an emergency White House meeting on April 18, an extraordinarily reckless proposal surfaced: Trump reportedly raised the idea of studying the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, immediately shot it down, saying the consequences would be unthinkable.
In ordinary times, such rumours would be dismissed outright. But in the Trump era, nothing is too outlandish to be real. With no viable military path to victory, there is no telling what desperate ideas might take hold. Trump has painted himself into a corner.
If America steps back, there is still room to breathe. The differences between the US and Iran are not as insurmountable as they appear. The key question is whether Washington is willing to make concessions — allowing Iran to retain a small quantity of enriched uranium on its soil, while demanding significant restrictions on its enrichment programme and accepting monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That could be enough to get a deal done.
Whether Iran goes to war or to peace ultimately rests on a single decision by Trump.
Lo Wing-hung
