As part of its ongoing efforts to document and analyze patterns of military conduct, civilian harm, and information warfare arising from recent military aggression against Iran, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) conducted an interview with Rick Sterling, a political journalist and analyst based in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Sterling has a long professional background in the electronics and aerospace industry, including work at UC Berkeley, before transitioning to full-time engagement in political journalism and advocacy. His analyses frequently focus on contemporary geopolitical conflicts, including Syria, Ukraine, and the broader role of Western states in shaping proxy warfare, media narratives, and international interventions.
In this interview, Sterling examines the use of proxy forces, coordinated media narratives, and strategic escalation in the context of recent developments involving Iran. He also reflects on the limitations of international investigative mechanisms in documenting civilian harm, the challenges of accountability in the presence of veto power in global institutions, and emerging proposals for economic and legal responses to military aggression.
The interview further explores broader questions of international law, diplomatic trust, and the implications of attacks occurring during negotiation processes, particularly in relation to the erosion of the principle of good faith in international relations.
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 the interview follows:
1. How does the current use of armed proxies and coordinated media disinformation during this aggression mirror the strategies you documented in Syria and Ukraine? what you might describe as a “pre-planned escalation?
The enemies of Iran (primarily US and Israel) tried to use Kurdish proxy forces and other terrorist elements to attack Iran from the North and West. I suspect that ISIS terrorists recently released from prisons in Syria were also part of this scheme. This was planned to coincide with the launching of attacks on February 28. The enemies of Iran planned a ground invasion by terrorists coupled with bombing from the air by the US and Israel. They expected a popular uprising as well. The air attacks did serious damage but the ground invasion failed and predicted popular uprising was in support not opposition to the government.
This is substantially different from what occurred in Syria. There, hundreds of anti-government groups were funded by Gulf monarchs and billionaires plus the CIA. The terrorist forces were cultivated and supported over many years by reactionary Gulf monarchs, the US, Israel and the West generally. The process began in 2011 and culminated in the overthrow of the Assad government thirteen years later. Because Syria is much smaller in geography and population compared to Iran, the Western sanctions were much more devastating. The US was able to invade, set up bases and steal the oil and wheat desperately needed. For various reasons, the West will not be able to do anything like this to Iran. Iran has successfully defended itself and retaliated against the aggressors.
The aggression against Iran is also very different from what has happened in Ukraine over the past two decades. In February 2014 the West (primarily the US and UK) were able to carry out a coup. The violence and overthrow of the elected government might be compared to the 1953 coup in Tehran. In Ukraine this began a period of intense propaganda against Russia and increasing militarization by NATO. The West (principally Germany, France and the US) ignored the Minsk Accords they had signed and committed to. This is an early indication of the use of diplomacy as a cover for sabotage and militarization. Similarly, the US and Israel have used fake diplomacy with Iran while plotting deadly military attacks.
2. What specific investigative mechanisms can independent NGOs use to verify and report war crimes, like the Minab school tragedy, to ensure these 168 lives are not reduced to mere “collateral damage” statistics in Western media?
I have inquired with US Centcom about the status of their investigation into the Minab school attack and massacre. So far, they have not replied. It is currently over ten weeks since the attack. Perhaps they will delay the release of the investigation for as long as possible.
Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch and Just Security have produced reports which acknowledge the culpability and need for changes in process. They equivocate on whether the Minab massacre was a “war crime”. The New York Times article on the event was worse. The article is titled “Analysis Suggests School Was Hit Amid U.S. Strikes on Iranian Naval Base”. They ignore the fact that Minab is far from the sea and that the “IRGC compound” has not been used for over a decade. It was never a “naval base”. Even google maps can identify the Shajarah Tayyebeh elementary school. The only question is whether this massacre was caused by incompetence or an intentional brazen war crime.
3. How can the international community and Global South alliances enforce reparations for the destruction of Iran’s civilian infrastructure when the aggressors hold veto power in the Security Council?
It will be difficult or impossible to enforce reparations. I think Iran has the right idea to have a toll booth at the Strait of Hormuz and charge passing vessels according to their responsibility for the unprovoked aggression against Iran.
4. Considering these strikes occurred while Iran was actively engaging in peace negotiations, what some analysts describe as “diplomacy as a smokescreen” strategy redefine the future of international legal integrity and the “Good Faith” principle?
Unfortunately, the US and Israel have crossed all red lines with their “decapitation” murders of political and religious leaders. They have shamelessly ignored and trashed international norms and laws, they have promoted the law of the jungle where “might makes right”. But they have miscalculated. As shown by Iran’s resilience and response, Israel and the US are not so mighty and powerful. Clearly the US and Israel should never be trusted so long as their current regimes are in power. Both countries need “regime change”. As for the US, it is no longer a democracy. As former President Jimmy Carter acknowledged, “The US is an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery.” The billionaires run both political parties and control the most important levers of power and foreign policy. Iran’s resilience has exposed the reality of the US military and the narcissistic and delusional leadership. Most of the American public will be much better off when the military industrial complex and elite control of the government are gone.