Attacks on pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturing facilities are categorically prohibited under the principles of distinction and proportionality.
Statements by Fatemeh Mohammadbeigi, a member of Parliament's Health Commission, regarding attacks on 24 Iranian pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies have laid bare a reality that transcends ordinary wartime conduct. She described these attacks as "clear instances of war crimes" and emphasized that "the enemy's methods differ fundamentally" from conventional military warfare. This fundamental difference raises a critical question: are we merely facing a war crime, or a form of state terrorism in which the aggressor state directly plays the role of perpetrator?
Under international humanitarian law, medical and pharmaceutical facilities enjoy special protections. Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) explicitly stipulates that civilian hospitals may not be attacked under any circumstances, and Article 12 of Additional Protocol I (1977) extends this protection to medical depots and pharmacies. But what has occurred in these attacks goes beyond mere violation of these laws. Instead of confronting military capabilities, the enemy has targeted the very chain of survival of the Iranian people — facilities that, according to the Health Commission member, included some engaged in producing cancer medications and responsible for supplying rare medicines.
The deliberate destruction of cancer patients' medications and rare drugs is not a military action aimed at weakening defensive capacity; it is the quiet extermination of patients who play no role in the conflict. These actions align completely with established criteria for terrorist operations: spreading terror among civilians and targeting vital civilian infrastructure. UN Security Council Resolution 2286 (May 2016), adopted by consensus, declared "deliberate attacks on hospitals and places where the wounded and sick are gathered" to be war crimes and called on states to end impunity for perpetrators. Resorting to genocide, war crimes, and various forms of indiscriminate attacks is nothing short of an admission of defeat in direct confrontation — a tactical shift toward state-sponsored terrorist operations.
This pattern can be understood within the definition of state terrorism: the use of state power to maximize harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure when conventional military options have failed.
One hallmark of state terrorism in the modern era is the attempt to launder war crimes as legitimate acts. Attackers may claim these facilities were dual-purpose. However, Article 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention stipulates that even if medical facilities are used for acts harmful to the enemy, protection is only lost after prior warning with a reasonable time limit. The reality is that attacks on pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturing facilities are categorically prohibited under the principles of distinction and proportionality. The Health Commission member's emphasis that these centers operated under research and knowledge‑based frameworks indicates that the destruction of Iran's scientific and intellectual capacity in the health sector was also a deliberate goal.
The international community's indifference to such attacks paves the way for their repetition elsewhere. Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) designates intentional attacks on medical buildings, equipment, and units as war crimes. Documenting the damage inflicted on the health sector in international forums as "war crimes" is a legal obligation. But beyond that, exposing the terrorist nature of these actions can strengthen Iran's public diplomacy in revealing the true face of the aggressor.
Fortunately, Iran's health system, relying on domestic capabilities, has achieved 98 percent self-sufficiency in the number of pharmaceutical products available. This capacity provides a strong foundation for thwarting this conspiracy. The clear message of these attacks to the Iranian people is that the enemy, having despaired of military victory, has turned instead to waging war on public health — an effort that, through the resilience of the people, its scientists, and its healthcare workers, is doomed to fail.