The devastating twelve-day war, which temporarily ended after claiming the lives of 1,190 people and injuring more than 4,475 in Iran (1), once again brings to mind a quote often attributed to Plato: in societies where political power rests in the hands of authoritarian rulers, even after a military war ends, the living continue to be at war—even if no more bullets are fired. These living citizens remain trapped in a silent yet exhausting battle in their everyday lives—fighting against poverty, injustice, discrimination, inequality, insecurity, the threat of renewed military conflict, and inner struggles such as grief, traumatic memories, and psychological wounds.

Among them, women—who make up half of the population—are not only affected during armed conflict but are also caught in invisible wars before and after the fighting ends. These include battles against entrenched systems of dominance and patriarchal order: domestic violence, gender discrimination, structural poverty, and suppression of reproductive rights. The bodies and daily lives of women often become battlegrounds, whether visible or hidden. Militarism and long-standing patriarchy go hand in hand, reproducing and reinforcing one another. Rigoberta Menchú Tum, Indigenous activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate from Guatemala, captured this reality aptly: “Peace is not only the absence of war; as long as poverty, racism, discrimination, and exclusion exist, achieving a safe and peaceful world will remain difficult.”

Wars—from the formation of their conditions to incitement, initiation, and military aggression—carry multiple dimensions that profoundly affect human lives. This article focuses on one vital aspect of war: the security and well-being of civilian populations.

International Law and the Protection of Civilians’ Security and Health During War

Safety and security for citizens are deeply intertwined with the fundamental principles of human rights. However, explicit rights guaranteeing protection from violence or harm by others are not always clearly outlined in international human rights instruments. Instead, international law ensures rights such as life, liberty, personal security, and protection against arbitrary arrest or interference. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” and Article 12 affirms that individuals are protected from arbitrary interference and unlawful attacks.

Under international law, states are obligated to protect individuals and groups from human rights violations, including threats to safety and acts that compromise public and personal health in both public and private spaces, including during wartime. In human rights discourse, the right to security is generally interpreted as the obligation of the state to create a safe and stable environment that enables enjoyment of other human rights. Thus, while a broad concept of citizen health and security is recognized—especially against arbitrary state actions, war, and disorder—protection from criminal or social violence during war is typically considered an implied right, addressed through state obligations and related human rights, rather than explicitly stated.

Protection of civilians during armed conflict falls primarily under the scope of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Its key sources include the four Geneva Conventions (1949), their Additional Protocols, and customary international law.

Core Principles of International Humanitarian Law

Distinction: All parties involved in an armed conflict must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and between civilian and military targets. Deliberate attacks on civilians or civilian infrastructure are strictly prohibited.

Precaution: States must take all feasible precautions in planning and conducting military operations to avoid or minimize harm to civilians.

Proportionality: Attacks expected to cause civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage are prohibited.

Additionally, the Fourth Geneva Convention provides specific and extensive protections for civilians in war zones and occupied territories. These include prohibitions on murder, torture, inhumane treatment, and discrimination, as well as the right to receive humanitarian aid and to be reunited with family members. States are also encouraged to establish hospitals and safe zones for vulnerable populations. Warring parties must allow civilians to leave besieged areas and must not confine or target them within such zones.

Unfortunately, despite these international legal safeguards, in many cases we witness blatant violations of civilian rights. Disregard and disrespect for international law by authoritarian regimes and aggressive right-wing forces hinder effective implementation of these laws, leaving civilians unprotected against violence and aggression. International organizations such as the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and other human rights bodies strive—within their limited capacities—to monitor enforcement, deliver aid to civilians, and raise global awareness of civilian needs. Ultimately, protecting civilians as a core principle of international law requires global cooperation and the commitment of all nations to improve conditions and ensure safety for non-combatants.

Iran’s Shortcomings in Protecting Civilians During Israeli Attacks (2025)

During the twelve-day war and Israel’s attacks on Iran—which constitute a clear violation of international law—civilian casualties in Iran were significant: hundreds killed and thousands injured by airstrikes and missiles. Despite international law’s obligations to protect civilians during armed conflict, this crisis once again exposed serious deficiencies in Iran’s crisis management and weaknesses in its civil defense infrastructure. Civil defense refers to a set of non-military preventive measures aimed at reducing civilian vulnerability and minimizing damage during attacks. In practice, this approach includes reinforcing infrastructure, establishing effective warning systems, and preparing for emergency response.

According to domestic media, human rights organizations, and international assessments, Iran’s most critical shortcomings in this regard include:

1. Lack of Shelters and Emergency Infrastructure

• Absence of safe shelters: In major cities like Tehran, air raid shelters were widely inaccessible. Citizens had to seek refuge in underground parking garages or improvised spaces, if available.

• Lack of comprehensive safety guidelines: Government recommendations were limited to “shelter in place” or using basic underground locations. There was no evidence of coordinated evacuation planning or civilian protection strategies.

2. Weaknesses in Early Warning Systems

• Ineffective alerts: Many reports indicated that air raid warning systems failed to function effectively, leaving civilians caught off guard without time to seek shelter.

• Delayed information dissemination: Lack of timely and accurate updates from officials led to widespread confusion and increased danger for the public.

3. High Vulnerability of Civilian Infrastructure

• Widespread destruction of residential areas: Israeli strikes caused substantial damage to civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, residential buildings, Evin Prison, and urban areas—highlighting the absence of effective protective measures and the limited availability of shelters in sensitive zones.

4. Challenges in Medical Response

• Severe pressure on hospitals: The high number of wounded overwhelmed hospitals, and in many cases, emergency systems failed to provide effective care.

• Delayed emergency services: In many instances, aid teams arrived late to affected areas, increasing civilian suffering and disrupting immediate relief efforts.

5. Inability to Reduce Civilian Exposure to Danger

• No evacuation plans: Authorities did not issue organized plans for evacuating high-risk areas—contributing significantly to civilian casualties. Consider that Tehran has nearly 9.7 million residents, and Greater Tehran (including suburbs and municipalities) reaches 16.8 million. The idea that a simple warning from the U.S. to “leave Tehran” could ensure public safety is implausible.

• Civilians living near sensitive sites: Reports showed civilians residing near military, nuclear, or strategic locations—often unaware of the associated risks—greatly increasing their vulnerability to attacks.

International Reactions and Consequences

The United Nations and international human rights groups criticized the high civilian toll, lack of protective measures, and weak infrastructure in Iran. These organizations urged the Iranian government to take immediate, effective steps to strengthen civilian protection and crisis preparedness. The situation is particularly troubling given that the decades-long, contentious relationship between Iran and Israel had long made such a conflict foreseeable—yet no significant investments or political will to protect citizens from such risks were evident.

A Harsh Reality and Dual Responsibility

Israel claims it does not target civilians, yet the field evidence, high number of civilian deaths, and extent of destruction clearly indicate the catastrophic human consequences of these attacks. In addition to holding the attackers accountable, Iranian authorities bear responsibility for proactively and systematically protecting civilians—especially those economically marginalized and unable to comply with warnings to “leave Tehran.” This responsibility is not only a moral imperative but also a legal obligation under international law.

Final Word

Although this article does not directly address the tragic experiences of women and vulnerable social groups—such as the marginalized, elderly, people with disabilities, and other at-risk populations—it is evident that justice and equal citizenship in the realm of security are more precarious than ever during wartime. These groups are more susceptible to harm. As seen in Gaza, according to estimates by UN Women, more than 28,000 women and girls have been killed since the beginning of the war. According to Vatican News, the number of child fatalities has exceeded 13,000, and UNICEF reports that an average of 28 children die each day in this conflict.

The truth is that justice in the realm of security only becomes meaningful when all citizens—regardless of gender, class, nationality, ethnicity, religion, age, or physical condition—feel equally safe. The unequal allocation of public resources in favor of the powerful, rather than the people, reflects the political will and priorities of ruling elites in defining “security.” As economist Nasser Zakeri writes: “From an economic standpoint, security is a public good, and its provision is the responsibility of the state. Like any other public or private good, it requires funding. Hence, the state must allocate part of its resources to ensure societal security. But two fundamental questions arise: first, how much of the public budget should be allocated to security? And second, for which segment of society is this security produced and offered?” He adds: “In many cases, providing security essentially means preserving the power structure itself. In some societies, traditions and laws prevent rulers from defining and ensuring security solely for themselves.”

There is no doubt that economic sanctions have significantly impacted Iran’s financial constraints, but structural inefficiencies and lack of political will in providing citizen security—whether during foreign war or in peacetime—cannot be blamed solely on financial limitations. The state’s focus on ineffective, failed, and costly projects—such as enforcing compulsory hijab or policing public behavior—clearly shows that real citizen safety and peace are not priorities, and public demands go unheard.

Indeed, history has shown time and again: when the fire of war with foreign aggressors is extinguished, another war often begins—perhaps even fiercer—the war against social insecurity, against the ruins of public trust, against suppression and arbitrary executions, against new waves of prisoner abuse, and against a silence born of fear and hopelessness.

Reference:
1 – Twelve Days Under Fire: Comprehensive Report on the Iran-Israel War, HRANA, June 26, 2025 (6 Tir 1404).