As part of its ongoing efforts to document the humanitarian, cultural, and legal consequences of recent military aggression against Iran, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV) conducted an interview with Dr. Philip O. Hopkins, Professor of Religious Studies at Gateway School of Theology in California. Dr. Hopkins holds doctoral degrees in both Practical Theology and Iranian History, and his academic work has extensively examined historical, religious, and cultural developments related to Iran and the wider region.
In this interview, Dr. Hopkins reflects on the human cost of attacks on civilians, the impact of sanctions on ordinary people, the destruction of cultural and historical heritage, and the ethical dimensions of attacks on religious sites. Drawing from his background in theology and Iranian studies, he discusses questions of human dignity, the role of the media, freedom of the press, and the moral responsibilities of governments and the international community during times of conflict.
The perspectives expressed in this interview do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence.
The full transcript of the interview follows:
1. In Iran, when schools such as the Minab school are attacked—resulting in the deaths of 168 children, with some families still unable to recover the remains of their loved ones—this is not just a number; entire families and communities are deeply affected. Why do such human-centered narratives receive limited attention in international media, and how can this silence be effectively challenged?
I am not sure why there has been limited attention to this issue. Any time innocents die that is a tragedy, especially when they are children. All parties involved in this conflict should protect children. No one should harm children because of the actions of their parents. Protection of children is one of the hallmarks of a civil and modern society. When children are killed or injured, loved one should be able to mourn and bury them, regardless of the reason why they died. The press has the responsibility to highlight when children are harmed in an accurate and truthful manner. When people know of these types of misfortunes, they can hold their governments accountable. However, freedom of the press seems to be challenged more than ever before. This is unfortunate. The press should not be used as a propaganda tool. Rather, the press should check the excesses and overreaches of government, such as the killing of innocents.
2. In Iran, alongside military attacks, sanctions have also had a direct impact on the daily lives of ordinary people—from access to medicine to broader economic pressures. In your view, how do these conditions affect the fundamental rights of civilians? Can this situation be understood as a form of systematic pressure on the population, and what responsibility does the international community bear in this regard?
I am not sure how other people of faith see this, including Muslims and Jews, but as a Christian, I believe a question needs to be asked first: where do rights come from? When this question is answered, the veracity of responses to related questions can be addressed. Those who hold to an agnostic or atheist ideology – whether they are from Israel, Iran, Europe, the United States, or anywhere else – cannot answer the rights question consistently. At best, rights are situational and subjective and granted by those who are in power. That answer is flawed. Anytime a person grants another person rights, they are not rights at all; they are privileges that can be taken away. The Christian answer, if Christians are being consistent with their faith – is that rights come from God; a God who loves people enough to come into the world in the form of Jesus and pay the penalty for the sins of those who repent and believe in him. Because God so loved the world, he not only gave the world his son (Jesus), but he also provided the world common grace. One of the manifestations of common grace is the preservation of social order. God grants rights to all people, regardless of race or religion. One of the responsibilities of government is to function as a servant of God to make sure these rights are protected. When citizens of a country are deprived intentionally of these rights, their government should analyze what needs to be done to alleviate this concern. If their government cannot help, the international community can show its thankfulness to God and to each other by assisting those in need.
3. In the recent attacks on Iran, beyond human casualties, cultural and historical sites have also been damaged. In your view, what impact does the destruction of such heritage have on the identity and collective memory of a society? Are there clear international mechanisms for addressing and compensating for such losses, or are they often overlooked?
As long as cultural and historic sites are not being used in the war, there is no need for them to be attacked. Expressions of history and culture found in memorials and other structures have historic value. There is an emotional attachment to them that extends their worth beyond monetary means. When they are destroyed, this hinders the very thing that all people should want to preserve. I am not sure when it comes to compensation of destroyed sites, but that is a good point and should be discussed.
4. Given your background in religious studies, how should attacks on cultural and religious sites in Iran—such as mosques and churches—be understood from an ethical and religious perspective? Can such actions be viewed merely as military operations, or do they also constitute an assault on the beliefs and identity of a society?
Christians, Muslims, and Jews should never make their religious sites into idols – one’s identity should be found in God and not in a structure – so if places are destroyed faith is not wrecked. However, damaging religious and cultural establishments dishonors God, the giver of life and the one who gives people the ability to create. As a Christian, I do not believe destroying any type of religious site – regardless of faith – is justified, as long as they are not used in the war. Although theologically I disagree with Islam and Judaism, for example, this does not mean I do not see a beauty in Islamic and Jewish architecture. Religious and cultural structures are ways people of different faiths (including atheism and agnosticism) can learn and dialog with one another while maintaining their own belief systems.