As part of its ongoing efforts to document serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law arising from recent U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) conducted an in-depth interview with David Swanson.
Swanson is an American activist, author, journalist, and radio host based in Virginia. He is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of World BEYOND War, a global network dedicated to the abolition of warfare, and serves as Campaign Coordinator for RootsAction.org. He also hosts Talk World Radio and is known for his work on peace advocacy, international law, and opposition to militarism. His work has been widely recognized, including receiving the 2018 Peace Prize from the U.S. Peace Memorial Foundation.
In this interview, Swanson reflects on the challenges of bringing global attention to civilian suffering, the limitations of existing international legal mechanisms, and the critical role of civil society in demanding accountability. His perspective highlights the importance of sustained public engagement and independent media efforts in confronting the normalization of war and violence.
The perspectives expressed in this interview do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence.
The full transcript of this important exchange follows:
1. In Iran, we have witnessed civilian areas being directly targeted, including the Minab school incident in which 168 children lost their lives, and some families are still waiting to find their loved ones. In your view, how can civil society ensure that these human stories are seen and understood globally, rather than being reduced to mere numbers in the news?
Forcing something into “viral” online popularity — such as the genocide in Gaza or Black Lives Matter or Me Too — is difficult. Gaza never really won over the corporate media; Black Lives Matter did for a while; and Me Too started there. It has to be seen as a big viral success before anyone will jump on board and participate in it, so some sort of ploy is needed to break out of that Catch-22. A story about the story can be created by dirupting an event, involving a celebrity, winning over an unexpected politician. Or perhaps producing Lego videos. Maybe the Lego videos could make a turn from just mocking Trump to focusing on the mass murder. What the rest of us can do is produce our own writing, speaking, video, audio, graphics, rallies, banner-drops, reports, studies, and social media pushing and pushing and pushing the story that mass murder is being openly committed, in hopes of having some momentum when a lucky break comes. But we do already have a big majority in the U.S. against the wars and can go ahead and give them credit for righteously objecting to mass murder, regardless of whether that is what everyone objects to, and encouraging useful action in addition to good thoughts.
2. In situations where civilian infrastructure in Iran—such as clinics, schools, and basic services—is damaged during ongoing tensions, what practical legal avenues exist to pursue accountability and obtain compensation, especially when major powers are involved?
Nothing is ever considered “practical” until after it succeeds, but it’s possible that someday it will appear practical to have demanded global support for the ICJ, the ICC, the UN Charter, and other standards of international law. I’d love to see the government of Iran publicly send a letter to the U.S. State Department indicating its decision to join the Kellogg-Briand Pact and thanking the U.S. government for leading the way in criminalizing all warmaking. I’d love to see the Iranian government ask the U.S. government to read the War Powers Resolution correctly — something a child could (and should) do.
3. Given the continuation of military and economic pressure against Iran, some analysts point to the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic lever. In your view, to what extent can restrictive actions in such waterways be examined within the framework of the right to self-defense or deterrence?
To the extent that they do not involve the illegal use of mines.