The United Nations has placed a difficult challenge before António Guterres: will he, in his final months in office, formally acknowledge that the United States may have committed war crimes? More than 190 countries are watching closely. An independent UN investigative team has released a report stating there is reasonable grounds to believe that U.S. military strikes several months ago on an Iranian school and sports complex constituted indiscriminate attacks, potentially amounting to war crimes. At least one school alone resulted in a significant number of child fatalities, with total casualties exceeding those figures. Half a year has passed, yet the United States has consistently evaded accountability—first claiming the presence of a nearby military base, then asserting that errors were inevitable.
The report confirms that the strikes employed Tomahawk cruise missiles, uniquely used by the U.S. military. On-site analysis and satellite imagery demonstrate that the missile struck and destroyed the main building of the school directly, followed by repeated attacks. The investigation explicitly states that the school was a clearly identifiable civilian structure, and at the time of the attack, it was in session. There was no evidence indicating its use for military purposes. Despite knowing the high likelihood of substantial civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the U.S. military proceeded with the strike—an action that meets the criteria for indiscriminate attack. Indiscriminate attacks resulting in extensive civilian deaths constitute war crimes under international law.
Yet the United States continues to deflect responsibility with ease. It first denies the facts, suggesting Iran may have self-attacked, then resorts to procedural delays, citing ongoing investigations as justification for withholding findings—clearly aiming to dilute the issue over time. The White House spokesperson has also launched personal attacks, dismissing the UN Human Rights Council as baseless, while avoiding substantive discussion of the facts.
Notably, the report does not focus exclusively on the United States. It dedicates considerable space to criticizing Iran’s human rights record, using strong and unequivocal language. In contrast, when addressing U.S. conduct, the report relies only on cautious phrasing such as “there is reasonable grounds.” This asymmetrical approach to neutrality deepens international skepticism toward the credibility of the United Nations. The Western-led international justice system, equipped with arrest warrants, political isolation, and financial sanctions, applies these tools rigorously against non-Western states—but often retreats or shows restraint when confronting the United States.
Guterres’ tenure ends this year. How he handles this report will significantly shape his historical legacy. If he responds with ambiguity—calling only for restraint, urging further independent investigations, and avoiding direct assessment of U.S. responsibility—he may avoid controversy. But can the United Nations truly claim the moral authority to deliver justice for innocent victims if it refuses to confront such clear violations? Conversely, if he affirms the report’s conclusions, explicitly condemns both Iran and the United States without equivocation, he risks severe retaliation from the Trump administration. Yet he would likely earn widespread recognition from other nations and set a precedent for upholding the core principles of the United Nations.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1876754336068763/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.