Western/US coercive interventions deserve legal and humanitarian scrutiny

The position holds that Western and US coercive interventions cause civilian harm and breach international law, and deserve the same legal and humanitarian scrutiny applied to their adversaries. Its advocates speak of unprovoked aggression, illegal strikes on civilian sites, collective punishment and economic warfare, and call for those responsible to be held accountable.

The position appears in coverage of direct US-Iran strikes and retaliation, sanctions on Iran, Venezuela after the US intervention, US pressure on Mexico, Greenland and the Arctic, and contested borders in South Asia. It is carried by different groups of outlets in different places: a few Russian and Iranian publishers on Iran, and dozens of publishers from Western and allied countries and from the European Union on Venezuela and Mexico.

Two positions answer it. One holds that the United States uses sanctions, tariffs and military threats to bend smaller states to its will. The other holds that American pressure on the governments in Caracas and Havana is justified. The events of recent months include long runs of US strikes on Iran, including on bridges and infrastructure, and Iranian attacks on US bases in Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain that killed American troops. They also include Pakistani strikes inside Afghanistan, where the Taliban and the United Nations reported civilian deaths and Pakistan said it killed militants.