

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
With more than 1,700 civilians, including hundreds of children, reportedly killed during US-Israeli bombarding of Iran, one advocacy group said that "more pressure and oversight on these war crimes is urgently needed."
While claiming that the subject of civilian casualties is his “passion” before US lawmakers during a US Senate hearing on Thursday, the head of US Central Command was asked directly if he and his team had investigated a litany of reports about civilians being killed or maimed by US bombs in Iran. His answer? No.
Commander Adm. Brad Cooper appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee for a hearing on US Central Command (CENTCOM) and US Africa Command (AFRICOM) concerning the Trump administration's request for $1.5 trillion in military spending authorization for 2027.
During the questioning, Cooper refuted reports that US-Israeli airstrikes have hit 22 schools in Iran and raised eyebrows for his answers regarding cuts to Pentagon programs meant to mitigate harm to noncombatants.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)—who last month led the introduction of a defeated war powers resolution aimed at stopping President Donald Trump's "reckless" attack on Iran—pressed Cooper about US conduct in the war. She cited New York Times reporting that 22 schools and 17 healthcare facilities have been destroyed or damaged since Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the illegal war of choice on February 28.
"We have regulations. We have the law of war. We have human rights obligations. We have our own targeting requirements to avoid civilian harm and death," Gillibrand said. "Have you been implementing all the laws that are required under current law to minimize civilian death?"
.@SenGillibrand presses CENTCOM Commander Cooper on the bombing of schools and hospitals in Iran.
Cooper’s response is woefully insufficient, denying that more than one such bombing took place, despite widespread documentation of bombings destroying protected civilian sites. pic.twitter.com/8gy6Zx6eg2
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) May 14, 2026
"We follow all the procedures and have gone above and beyond to, in my case, personally warn the Iranian people of several instances during conflict where they were being potentially used as human targets," the admiral said.
Asked by Gillibrand "how did we then bomb 22 schools," Cooper countered that "there is no indication that we have that has been corroborated."
The Iranian Red Crescent Society claimed last month that at least 60 students and 10 staff members were killed in US-Israeli attacks on 32 universities and 857 schools.
Pressed by the senator on "how many schools" the US has bombed, Cooper retorted that "there is one active civilian casualty investigation from the 13,629 munitions" used to attack Iran.
The admiral was presumably referring to the February 28 cruise missile strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab, which killed 156 students and staff and wounded 95 others. Trump and senior administration officials initially denied responsibility for the massacre, but physical evidence, journalistic investigations, and a preliminary Pentagon probe indicate US culpability.
A skeptical Gillibrand repeated her question about 22 schools "and multiple hospitals" being bombed.
"There's no way that we can corroborate that," Cooper replied. "No indication of that whatsoever."
The senator asked for clarification: "There's no way you can corroborate, or no indication of it? Which one?"
Cooper answered, "No indication."
"Well, the indication is what's publicly available," Gillibrand fired back. "There is indication. Have you investigated those claims?"
The admiral replied, "We have not."
Gillibrand continued: "Why have you not? If this is a passion of yours, if you believe that the civilian casualties are not consistent with the law of war and not consistent with human rights obligations... why have you not investigated those allegations when they're publicly being made on the cover of The New York Times?"
The senator then asked how Cooper has "managed the 90% cut to the personnel who are supposed to avoid civilian targets," a reference to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's gutting of the Biden-era Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP), which laid out a series of policy steps aimed at preventing and responding to the death and injury of noncombatants.
The plan, which was implemented after US forces killed an estimated 432,000 civilians since late 2001 during the so-called War on Terror, was skeptically welcomed for its commitment to reducing harm to noncombatants. However, Hegseth said at the outset of the Iran War that US forces would not be bound by “stupid rules of engagement" and would instead prioritize “lethality."
The Pentagon eliminated the entire civilian harm office at Joint Special Operations Command, removed related specialists from target development teams, and slashed CENTCOM's civilian harm mitigation team from 10 people to just one full-time staffer.
Cooper told Gillibrand that he would be "happy to provide any report" on the matter.
Iranian officials and human rights groups say more than 1,700 Iranian civilians have been killed by US and Israeli attacks since February 28. US and Israeli use of artificial intelligence systems to select bombing targets exponentially faster than any person has also raised concerns regarding a lack of meaningful human oversight. One former IDF officer said AI enabled a “mass assassination factory” in Gaza, where more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said after the exchange with Gillibrand that "Cooper’s response is woefully insufficient, denying that more than one such bombing took place, despite widespread documentation of bombings destroying protected civilian sites."
"More than 1,700 civilians, including hundreds of children, were killed in the bombardment of Iran," NIAC added. "Dozens of schools and hospitals were damaged and destroyed by the dropping of massive bombs in urban areas. More pressure and oversight on these war crimes is urgently needed."
Trump’s Iran War is killing almost twice as many civilians per day as Afghanistan and, during the first week, cost nearly three times as much per day as Iraq.
US President Donald Trump's war in Iran has passed the two-month mark with little to show for it besides thousands of dead civilians, gas prices exceeding $4 a gallon, and tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds spent.
It's just the latest in a decades-long series of US-led wars that have cost unfathomable amounts of blood and treasure, according to an analysis out this week by Al Jazeera.
It estimates that major US military engagements since 1950—in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan—have directly cost the lives of nearly 4.5 million civilians and more than $5.7 trillion.
The data, collected into a sprawling open-source WarCosts archive maintained by TheDataProject.AI, comes from a variety of government reports, peer-reviewed academic research, and investigative organizations.
The civilian casualty number notably only includes those directly caused by the wars themselves, not those caused by the resulting losses of food, healthcare, or war-related diseases. It also does not include the lives lost in proxy conflicts funded by the US, Saudi Arabia's brutal war in Yemen, which resulted in an estimated 150,000 violent civilian deaths between 2015-22, or Israel's more than two-year genocidal war in Gaza, which has resulted in at least over 75,000 deaths, and likely many more.
The dollar figure, meanwhile, does not include the additional $2.2 trillion the US is expected to spend caring for veterans of the post-9/11 wars until 2050, according to Brown University's Costs of War research series.

Even compared with the staggering figures throughout US history, the cost of the war in Iran so far is uniquely high.
The Pentagon estimated that during just the first six days of the war, the US government spent an average of $1.88 billion per day, nearly three times the daily cost of the next most expensive major conflict, Iraq.
On Wednesday, Pentagon comptroller Jules Hurst told Congress that the Iran War had cost about $25 billion in total since it began two months ago. But many critics, including Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), have suggested that this number is "totally off" and the cost is likely much higher.
Stephen Semmler, a data analyst and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated based on statements from officials, federal procurement and operations data, and reporting on military deployments and armaments use that by March 13—just two weeks into the conflict—the war had already cost about $28.7 billion, over $2.1 billion per day. This analysis included the military's operational costs, the costs of weapons, damage to US military assets, and subsidies to Israel.
The Trump administration has reportedly requested an additional $200 billion in military funding from Congress for the war.
The war in Iran resulted in 1,701 civilian deaths during its first 40 days, according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, equivalent to about 43 per day—nearly double the number killed per day in Afghanistan.

What distinguishes the Iran War from previous US military adventures is its staggering unpopularity. At its start, polls showed 43% of Americans disapproved of Trump's decision to launch the war. Disapproval had jumped to 60% as of April 12.
With the exception of the Korean War, which began very unpopular and gained approval over time, no other major US conflict has begun with so little backing from the US public—just 9% disapproved of the Afghanistan War when it began, 23% disapproved of Iraq, and 24% disapproved of Vietnam, and it took years for the majority of the public to turn against them.

The WarCosts data center estimates that the nearly $8 trillion spent on these major wars could have paid for a century of four-year public college for every American, 400 years of clean drinking water for everyone on Earth, or more than 200 years of universal pre-K for every child.
Citing a recent expert estimate that the Iran War could cost $1 trillion if it goes on for a decade, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) lamented in a social media post that "somehow, there is always money for war, but never enough money for housing, education, or the needs of working people."
The senator said, "We must and will change our national priorities."
Responding to other recent remarks from the Pentagon chief, the expert warned that “a sole focus on achieving maximum lethality is inherently incompatible with civilian protection.”
As the US military accelerates its adoption of autonomous weapons systems amid a growing global artificial intelligence arms race, one expert told Common Dreams on Wednesday that "greater action needs to be taken urgently" to protect civilians and ensure meaningful human control over rapidly developing technologies.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told congressional lawmakers Wednesday during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the proposed $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget for 2027 that the military will soon have a new "sub-unified command" dedicated to autonomous warfare.
Hegseth, who advocates “maximum lethality” for US forces, has expressed disdain for what he called “stupid rules of engagement” designed to minimize civilian harm. He has overseen the dismantling of efforts meant to mitigate wartime harm to civilians—hundreds of thousands of whom have been killed in US-led wars during this century, according to experts.
This "maximum lethality" ethos, combined with AI-powered systems allowing for exponentially faster and more numerous target selection, has raised concerns that have been underscored by actions including Israel Defense Forces massacres in Gaza and Lebanon, and US attacks like the cruise missile strike on a school in Iran that killed 155 children and staff.
"A sole focus on achieving maximum lethality is inherently incompatible with civilian protection," Verity Coyle, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's (HRW) crisis, conflict, and arms division, told Common Dreams. "If the United States truly seeks to protect civilians, it should forgo this limited focus and ensure it has guardrails in place that assess the proportionality of its actions and guarantee a distinction between civilians and combatants."
"Under international humanitarian law, civilian protection requires that military actions abide by the principles of distinction and proportionality," Coyle noted. "In other words, military actors must distinguish between civilians and combatants and ensure that the resulting harm to civilians from their actions would not be excessive in comparison to the perceived military gain."
Experts on lethal autonomous weapons systems—commonly called "killer robots"—stress the need for meaningful human control. However, with industry-backed efforts afoot to ban state and local governments from placing guardrails on AI development, retaining such control could become increasingly difficult as the technology advances.
"The lack of serious guardrails... shows a troubling lack of concern for these real and immediate risks to civilians both in the United States and abroad," Coyle said. "While we have seen some Congress members and state legislators express concern over these developments, greater action needs to be taken urgently."
Asked about the "if we don't build it, they will" mentality of many US proponents of unchecked AI development that is reminiscent of the Cold War nuclear arms race, Coyle said the United States is ignoring its "ability to set the global agenda and international humanitarian law norms."
"As we see greater integration of AI in the military domain and resulting civilian harm, we need strong international leadership to respond to these threats, not states relinquishing their responsibilities," she asserted.
Coyle continued:
Throughout [HRW's] decades of work in banning weapons that cause indiscriminate civilian harm, including the Mine Ban Treaty and Convention on Cluster Munitions, we have seen that even when some major military powers object to new international law, other states are able to band together and create new norms that major military powers eventually abide by. In this moment, the United States needs to decide if it will stand up for the principles of civilian protection and a rules-based order, or if it will walk away from the system it helped create and that has served to protect civilians for several decades.
There is also a danger that companies will proceed with risky AI weapons development, both in pursuit of profit and out of fear of getting left behind if they don't push forward. For example, Anthropic—maker of the AI assistant Claude—lost a $200 million Pentagon contract and is facing a government blacklist and legal battles after the company refused to loosen safety restrictions on autonomous weapons and surveillance.
Meanwhile, OpenAI, which makes the generative AI platform ChatGPT, rewrote its “no military use” policy to allow “national security” applications of its products, opening the door to lucrative Pentagon contracts.
Asked what civil society can do now to rein in reckless AI development, Coyle said that while HRW remains "focused on educating decision-makers and the public," there are "clear steps states can take, including supporting an international legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons systems and regulating the military use of AI."
"Through the Stop Killer Robots Campaign—a coalition of 270+ organizations focused on banning and regulating autonomous weapons systems and AI in the military domain—we are working globally to address these challenges," she noted.
While loss of human control over AI systems still appears to still be well over the horizon, Coyle said that "every day we see a world inching closer to this reality."
"Our message to states is that now is the time to take immediate, robust action to address this risk and protect civilians before it is too late," she stressed.