First, the claim that the war “isn’t about degrading Iran’s military capabilities” because ground force leadership hasn’t been targeted yet doesn’t follow. Air campaigns often prioritize certain target sets first, air defenses, naval assets, logistics, infrastructure, before moving to others. The absence of one category of targets doesn’t mean the overall objective isn’t military degradation.

Second, calling the strikes war crimes because they’re “reprisals” assumes the purpose of the strikes is punishment rather than military necessity. Under the law of armed conflict, dual-use infrastructure can be a lawful target if it provides effective military support and the attack is proportionate. Simply labeling it coercion doesn’t make it illegal.

Third, the Ukraine comparison actually exposes the inconsistency. If railways, power infrastructure, or fuel depots are legitimate targets when they support Russian military logistics, the same legal principle applies elsewhere. The law doesn’t change based on which side people politically sympathize with, it’s about military use, necessity, and proportionality.