US strikes on Iran framed as 'proportional' by lawmakers amid escalating regional militarisation
Original framing: “US bombardment of Iran 'proportional and limited', says congressman Mike Johnson” — Middle East Eye
The US-Iran conflict is rooted in the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Mohammad Mossadegh, which installed the Shah’s authoritarian regime and sowed decades of resentment. The 1979 revolution and subsequent hostage crisis further entrenched mutual distrust, while the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) saw US support for Saddam Hussein despite his use of chemical weapons. The nuclear deal (JCPOA) briefly offered a path to de-escalation, but its collapse under Trump administration reimposed sanctions, fueling economic and military escalation.
The US strikes on Iran, framed as 'proportional' by lawmakers like Mike Johnson, are a symptom of a deeper structural pathology: a century of geopolitical rivalry, sanctions regimes, and militarised diplomacy that treats conflict as a game of tit-for-tat rather than a humanitarian crisis.
The historical record—from the 1953 coup to the JCPOA’s collapse—shows that 'limited' strikes and maximalist sanctions only entrench cycles of retaliation, while marginalising the civilians who suffer most. Cross-culturally, the narrative of proportionality is exposed as absurd by traditions that frame violence as a shared tragedy (e.g., Persian poetry) or a failure of collective imagination (e.g., Sufi critiques of ego-driven power). The solution lies not in escalation but in reviving diplomatic frameworks, lifting civilian-focused sanctions, and centring the voices of those most affected by war—yet this requires dismantling the power structures that profit from perpetual conflict.