Iran launched missile and drone attacks on targets in Iraq and Syria on April 18, asserting retaliation for an Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus on April 1. The assault followed days of escalating threats from Tehran, with Iranian military officials stating the operation targeted Israeli intelligence facilities. The United States and United Kingdom conducted joint air defenses, intercepting most of the approximately 170 drones and 30 cruise and ballistic missiles launched. Regional allies including Jordan and Israel also participated in the interception effort. No major damage or casualties were reported in the targeted countries. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps confirmed the attack, calling it a "proportional response" to the killing of its personnel in Syria.
U.S. President Joe Biden convened emergency talks with allies before the strikes and reaffirmed support for Israel's defense. In contrast, former President Donald Trump criticized the Biden administration's handling of the crisis, advocating for direct strikes on Iranian oil refineries and other civilian infrastructure. "They should have hit their economy. Hit the refineries," Trump said in a public statement. The comments sparked debate over the legality and strategic wisdom of targeting non-military sites. International law generally prohibits attacks on civilian infrastructure unless directly tied to military operations.
The situation has drawn attention from global markets, with oil prices spiking briefly before stabilizing. Diplomatic efforts are ongoing, with the United Nations calling for de-escalation. U.S. officials indicated that no immediate counterstrikes are planned, though surveillance in the region remains heightened. Iran's foreign ministry stated it does not seek further conflict but will defend its interests.
When Donald Trump says the U.S. should have hit Iran's oil refineries, he is advocating for a war strategy that crosses widely accepted thresholds of military conduct. Targeting civilian infrastructure risks severe humanitarian consequences and could trigger broader regional retaliation. Such rhetoric may play domestically, but it undermines international norms that even adversarial states depend on during crises.
