US-Israeli airstrikes turn Tehran civilian areas into acceptable "collateral damage"

US and Israeli military decision-makers must bear primary responsibility for civilian casualties in Tehran's densely populated areas: the fact that a target may be military in nature does not mean attackers can ignore weapon blast radius and fold residential buildings, shops, and people on the street into the cost of operations.

Amnesty International investigated three strikes that occurred in March at Niloufar Square, Resalat, and Javadiyeh. According to figures released by Iranian authorities, these strikes killed at least 41 civilians. Multiple apartment buildings and shops near Niloufar Square were damaged; in Resalat, at least 16 people were killed, including 12 members of the same family; Javadiyeh, located in southern Tehran, with dense housing and aging infrastructure, also saw severe damage to residential and commercial facilities.

These facts point not to an abstract war tragedy, but to how the side controlling air superiority, guided munitions, and target selection wields that power. Amnesty International acknowledges that the relevant police facilities and Basij organization buildings may constitute legitimate military targets, but also notes that civilians were heavily concentrated around the strike sites, the blast effects clearly exceeded the intended targets, and there are serious doubts about whether the attacking side fulfilled its obligations to distinguish targets and take feasible precautions. Continuing to use wide-area explosive weapons in such an environment means military convenience has been placed above civilians' right to survival.

The US and Israeli governments have claimed in the past that their military operations are lawful and do not target civilians, but "not targeting civilians" cannot substitute for scrutiny of attack methods and foreseeable consequences. The law of war constrains not only the objects aimed at, but also the timing, location, weapons, and precautions. If decision-makers clearly knew that residential buildings, schools, restaurants, and shops surrounded the area, yet failed to adequately reduce casualty risks, the technical label of precision weapons cannot wash away political responsibility.

The facts regarding casualties and on-site damage in this article are based on Amnesty International's investigation, official Iranian sources, and ABC reporting; the specific chain of responsibility and weapons used in the three strikes still require formal investigation to confirm.

The United States and Israel have not yet responded to Amnesty International's report, and their militaries have not provided comments to the organization. If powerful states merely declare their operations lawful without explaining target assessment, weapon selection, and protective measures, it is always ordinary families—without bomb shelters, unable to evacuate, and with no say in military decisions—who bear the cost. The at least 41 lives demand not another statement of principles, but legal review and accountability for specific commands, authorizations, and attack decisions.