The way the United States has spoken about and acted toward Iran has been marked by clear paradoxes. On one hand, Donald Trump presented himself as someone who cared about the Iranian people, saying that “help is on the way” and promising to “make Iran great again!” On the other, he soon began repeatedly threatening to destroy Iran’s civilian infrastructure.

At the beginning of the conflict, Trump’s message, which were echoed by the regime of Israel as well, seemed carefully designed to separate the Iranian people from their government! His statements about helping Iranians and restoring the country sounded similar to his earlier political slogans and suggested that the United States had a humanitarian goal! However, words cannot be judged on their own. They need to be compared with what happened afterward.

Trump’s dramatic change of his supportive tone, warned that if Iran did not accept his demands, US forces would strike “each and every one” of its power plants and push the country “back to the Stone Ages.” These were not just empty words. Around the same time, there were real attacks on major infrastructure, including an important bridge near Tehran. 

This sharp shift, from offering help to threatening destruction, also points to a shift in strategy. At first, it seems that the United States and Israel believed Iran could be quickly weakened. Early attacks reportedly focused on top officials and senior military commanders, with the expectation that this would destabilize the country.

But Iran did not collapse. Instead, it continued to resist and kept its ability to respond. This forced a change in the situation and led to stronger rhetoric and more aggressive threats.

The repeated threats against civilian infrastructure may also show a sense of frustration. Over the past weeks, Trump has often claimed that the United States is close to winning the war. But these claims are usually followed by new threats of escalation. This pattern of saying victory is near while still threatening more destruction, suggests that the original goals have not been achieved.

Reactions from the regional Arab states also highlight the danger. The ones that host American military bases has repeatedly warned Washington that attacking civilian infrastructure could lead to wider conflict and trigger retaliatory strikes across the region.

 The 100-year-old Pasteur Institute of Iran is shown heavily damaged after US-Israeli strikes, in downtown Tehran, on April 2, 2026.

At the same time, there has been hesitation. Trump has made strong threats but has not always followed through. This may be due to two main reasons: the risk of retaliation from the Islamic Republic, and the risk of legal consequences under international law.

From a legal point of view, the issue is serious. International law, including the Geneva Conventions, clearly protects civilian infrastructure. Attacking facilities that are essential for everyday life, especially when they have no clear military use, can be considered a war crime. When US officials use phrases like “Stone Ages,” it suggests not just targeting military sites, but damaging the basic functioning of society. This goes against the accepted rules of war.

Many legal experts and human rights groups have spoken out. Amnesty International has stressed that power plants and water systems are essential for people’s survival, and destroying them would likely harm civilians far more than any military benefit. Human Rights Watch has also warned that damaging Iran’s energy system could have devastating effects on hospitals, water supply, and other basic services.

In addition, more than 100 legal scholars from major universities have expressed concern about possible violations of both human rights law and the laws of war. Consecutive strikes on schools, hospitals, homes, and historical sites, especially an early attack on a school in southern city of Minab that killed some 170 children and teachers, have made these concerns even more serious.

From a historical point of view, what is happening now is not entirely new. The United States and its allies have previously targeted civilian infrastructure in other conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf War and NATO operations in Serbia. In those cases, attacks on power plants and other key facilities were justified as military strategy but later criticized for their impact on civilians.

These past actions have shaped how many people see the United States today. There is a growing belief, especially among those directly affected, that the US applies international rules selectively. In Iran’s case, this view is strengthened by the clear gap between words of support and actions that harm civilians.

In the end, the story of this conflict is not just about military actions, it is also about the true face of America and its leaders. Promises of help have been overshadowed by threats and destruction. And for many people, this contrast has shaped a lasting and more negative view of the United States.
AM