Its probably not the reason they are attacking (except in as much that it makes the iranian regime vulnerable). However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era. (Edit: to clarify, im saying its the type of thing people build justifications for war around. Whether its a valid justification on this specific case is probably highly debatable. I think a reasonable argument could be made)

> However i would say that yes, humanitarian intervention is one of the only non self-defense justifications for war that anyone has ever accepted in the post-ww2 era

So when is the US intervening in Ukraine then? Russia is literally doing human safari with drones hunting down civilians in Kherson.

> Did you miss the absolute massive amounts of aid US has given ukraine?

I missed US bombing Moscow, like they are bombing Tehran at this moment.

But this will undoubtedly increase the general level of adversarial feelings and justifications of violence worldwide for many decades to come. The seeds of the next ISIS were planted today

Can the US or Israel morally claim “humanitarian” intervention given what’s happening in parallel in Gaza? If Iran bombed Tel Aviv would you call it a humanitarian intervention? Is this a creative use of the term? When you make a “humanitarian” intervention to save some humans, while decimating others it sounds like you think the “others” are not/sub-humans.

So I suppose you'll be attacking Saudi Arabia after this if you're so worried about humanitarian conditions?

You have to pick your battles and be pragmatic. Changing the Iranian regime would have a much broader impact than changing the Saudi Arabian one.

Bombs for peace.

The 'tens of thousands' figure is one primary justification. Iran (eventually) getting a nuke is another.