Iranian missile strikes have injured 180 people in Israel, according to officials, marking another escalation in the cycle of state violence that continues to devastate ordinary people across the Middle East while serving the interests of competing power structures. The strikes represent retaliation in an ongoing conflict where governments use military force to assert dominance, settle scores, and maintain their grip on power. Each attack and counter-attack is justified through nationalist rhetoric and claims of self-defense, yet the primary victims are always civilians who have no say in the decisions that put them in harm's way. The 180 injured individuals are ordinary people—workers, families, community members—whose lives have been upended by decisions made in distant capitals. They join countless others across the region who have suffered from the endless cycle of state-sponsored violence, from Yemen to Syria to Palestine to Iran itself. Both the Iranian and Israeli governments maintain that their actions are necessary for national security, yet this security paradigm has produced only insecurity for the populations supposedly being protected. Military spending drains resources from social needs, while the constant threat of violence creates trauma and instability that spans generations. The conflict serves multiple interests for those in power. For the Iranian government, external threats help justify internal repression and distract from domestic economic failures. For the Israeli government, the security state apparatus maintains control over Palestinian territories and justifies policies that would otherwise face greater resistance. Lost in the geopolitical analysis are the human costs: families torn apart, communities destroyed, and the perpetual fear of the next attack. Also obscured is the reality that ordinary Iranians and Israelis have no inherent conflict—their governments create and perpetuate hostilities that serve elite interests. Anti-war movements exist in both nations, with citizens risking arrest and persecution to oppose their governments' military policies. These voices are systematically marginalized by state power and mainstream media that frame conflict as inevitable rather than as a choice made by those wielding authority. **Why This Matters:** This attack exemplifies how state violence perpetuates itself in an endless cycle, with ordinary people bearing the costs of decisions made by unaccountable authorities. The conflict demonstrates that national security frameworks serve primarily to justify state power rather than protect populations. Real security requires dismantling the military apparatus and power structures that enable such violence, allowing communities to build direct relationships across borders without state interference.
