By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following US-Israeli strikes that reportedly destroyed two Iranian universities, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard issued a threat on March 29 to target US universities in the Middle East. The Guard demanded an official condemnation of the university bombings from the US government by noon on March 30, Tehran time, warning that American campuses in the region and their surroundings would face retaliation if this demand was not met. This warning urged employees, professors, students, and residents near American universities in the Gulf to stay at least a kilometer away from campuses.
Read the original article here
The idea that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is now threatening to target American universities located in the Middle East is certainly a disturbing development, and it raises a lot of serious questions. This isn’t just a matter of geopolitical posturing; it involves the potential endangerment of students and the very fabric of academic institutions in the region.
It’s important to understand the context surrounding these threats. Iran’s Foreign Ministry has previously accused the United States and Israel of deliberately targeting and erasing its scientific foundation and cultural heritage. This accusation stems from past strikes on Iranian universities, such as the Isfahan University of Technology and the University of Science and Technology in Tehran. So, from Iran’s perspective, these threats might be framed as a response to what they perceive as attacks on their own educational infrastructure.
However, the notion of targeting universities, regardless of who initiates the action, is incredibly problematic. Many observers are quick to point out that attacking a university, especially one located in a residential area as some in Kuwait are, would cause immense suffering to innocent students. Such actions are widely condemned as immoral and a violation of the rules of war. War, after all, is supposed to have boundaries, and when those boundaries are blurred, it can devolve into a chaotic free-for-all where no one is safe.
There’s also the angle that such actions could be seen as an attempt to bolster a lack of motivation for direct military engagement. If boots on the ground are not feasible, perhaps striking at symbols of foreign influence, like American universities, is seen as a way to exert pressure and achieve a similar effect. It’s a tactic that seeks to maximize impact through intimidation and disruption.
The presence of American universities in the Middle East, with campuses scattered across countries like Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait, is a significant factor here. These institutions often serve as a vital revenue stream for American universities, attracting international students who may find it easier to access a U.S.-style education closer to home. For students in the Middle East, attending a campus in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait can be far more accessible than traveling to the United States, and this offers a way to circumvent complex immigration policies while still capitalizing on international student enrollment.
The IRGC’s threats are particularly concerning because some of these campuses, like the American University of Beirut, are long-standing institutions situated right in the heart of densely populated and mixed residential areas. An attack on such a location would undoubtedly have devastating consequences for the civilian population. The idea that the IRGC might not care about this collateral damage, and might even deliberately target places where innocent students are, is a chilling thought.
It’s also worth considering the dynamic between the Trump administration and the Iranian government. Some commentors suggest that these two entities are more alike than they might initially appear, perhaps in their willingness to engage in aggressive actions. The mention of Trump’s apparent disinterest in schools or his past pronouncements about loving the “poorly educated” could be interpreted as a signal that educational institutions are not a priority for him, potentially emboldening adversaries.
The complexity of the situation is further highlighted by the discussion around who “started this war.” While some argue that Iran is a terrorist state, others counter that it is the U.S. and Israel who initiated attacks on Iranian universities and killed innocent civilians. This back-and-forth reveals a deep-seated animosity and a cycle of perceived aggression and retaliation. The notion of “retaliatory strikes” is often brought up, suggesting that Iran’s threats are a response to prior actions.
Furthermore, the internal political situation within Iran cannot be ignored. The government’s control over the internet and the potential for internal dissent add another layer to the narrative. Some speculate that student populations might not even be present at targeted universities if the city is considered a war zone, or that the regime might intentionally place individuals in schools to create headlines if they are bombed. This raises the disturbing possibility of using students as pawns for propaganda purposes.
Ultimately, the IRGC’s threats to target American universities in the Middle East represent a dangerous escalation. Regardless of the justifications offered, the targeting of educational institutions and the potential harm to innocent students are universally condemned actions. The situation underscores the volatile nature of the region and the profound consequences that can arise when diplomatic channels break down and military actions become the primary mode of engagement. It’s a stark reminder that the rules of engagement must be upheld, and that the pursuit of geopolitical objectives should never come at the cost of innocent lives and the destruction of vital centers of learning.