Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_324849629-scaled

US quietly releases new report on civilian casualties

The American-led coalition fighting ISIS updated its assessment of innocents killed in airstrikes, but the tally is likely far higher.

Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
google cta
google cta

Earlier this month, the U.S.-led coalition aimed at combating ISIS quietly announced its first public assessment of civilian casualties in more than 8 months, tallying at least 1,437 civilians killed in operations since 2014, a figure far lower than estimates from non-government organizations. 

Without any accompanying press release or efforts at greater public awareness, the Combined Joint Task Force — Operation Inherent Resolve, said that it had analyzed 68 cases of suspected civilian casualties and found 10 credible, 53 non-credible, and 5 to be duplicates. OIR said that 18 civilians were killed and 11 injured in the 10 reports it deemed credible. 

Airwars, an NGO monitoring civilian casualties in armed conflict, says that according to its assessments of the same incidents, the casualty figures are likely far higher, “with between 45 and 166 civilians reportedly killed.” 

The OIR release comes nearly a month after Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered a comprehensive review of civilian harm caused by U.S. airstrikes. Austin’s announcement came in the wake of a bombshell New York Times report on how U.S. government documents reveal that American bombing campaigns in the Middle East in recent years have been “marked by deeply flawed intelligence, rushed and often imprecise targeting, and the deaths of thousands of civilians, many of them children, a sharp contrast to the American government’s image of war waged by all-seeing drones and precision bombs.” The Times said the documents also show “that despite the Pentagon’s highly codified system for examining civilian casualties, pledges of transparency and accountability have given way to opacity and impunity.”

While the OIR release this month acknowledged 1,437 civilian deaths, Airwars says that at least 8,192 and as many as 13,243 civilians have been killed by coalition forces in the war against ISIS. Airwars also found irregularities in OIR’s explanations for the 53 alleged incidents of civilian casualties that it deemed “non-credible.”

“While we welcome the release of these civilian harm assessments, it is clear that there still needs to be radical improvement in DoD processes.” said Airwars incoming Director Emily Tripp. “We are seeking clarity in particular on when the remaining 37 open cases will be reviewed, as well as further information from DoD on their civilian harm assessment standards.”


Editorial credit: Orlok / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Reporting | Military Industrial Complex
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?
Top image credit: Sens. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) sit look on during a congressional hearing in January, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA)

Will Democrats pop Trump's $50 billion trial balloon for war?

Washington Politics

On Wednesday, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) told CNN that he would support new funding for the U.S. war with Iran — but only if Israel and Arab Gulf states help pay for it.

“We’re using our taxpayer money to protect those countries,” Gallego said. “We’re using our men to protect these countries. They need to throw in and have skin in the game too.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.