Voice of Urdu - وائس آف اردو

US-Israel Strikes on Iran: Key International Law Issues

Editorial Team

An analysis published by Dawn.com on March 24, 2026, argues that the US-Israel strikes on Iran in February 2026 breached the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force and also raises potential international humanitarian law concerns about how hostilities have been conducted, including attacks affecting civilians and disputed targets such as oil infrastructure. The piece, by international law expert Ayesha Malik, stresses that even when the legality of initiating a war is contested, all parties remain bound by the rules of armed conflict governing targeting, proportionality and feasible precautions.

The article separates two legal questions: whether force may be used at all under the UN Charter, and how hostilities must be conducted once a conflict begins under the Geneva Conventions and related rules. Malik’s assessment comes as the war is described as affecting more than 20 countries and as allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity have arisen “in the course of hostilities,” underscoring that these legal standards apply to all sides regardless of how the conflict started.

Key developments

UN Charter framework: The analysis says the UN Charter generally prohibits interstate force under Article 2(4), with exceptions including self-defence under Article 51 and Security Council-authorised force under Article 42.
Anticipatory self-defence disputed: Malik distinguishes pre-emptive self-defence against an imminent attack from preventive self-defence against a threat that has not materialised, stating that most states view preventive self-defence as unlawful.
Legality of February 2026 strikes: The article calls the US-Israel strikes on Iran “manifestly illegal,” rejecting claims—attributed to “Western press”—that the war is an act of pre-emptive self-defence.
Test for lawful pre-emption: Citing legal scholar Marko Milanović, the analysis says force would be lawful only if Iran had intent to attack, capability to do so, and if using force immediately was necessary because it was the “last window of opportunity” to prevent that attack—conditions the article says are not met.
Iran’s self-defence limits: While stating Iran has a right to respond under Article 51, Malik says any response must meet necessity and proportionality requirements and cannot be “excessive or punitive.”
Strikes involving Gulf states: The article says Iran could lawfully strike US bases in Gulf states only if necessary and proportionate, and raises questions about whether states such as Bahrain and Kuwait permitted their territory to be used for attacks on Iran before initial strikes.
Conduct-of-war rules: The piece highlights core principles—distinction, proportionality, and precaution—as the main tests for assessing attacks during hostilities.
Minab school strike: Malik cites an incident on February 28 in which the US allegedly struck a school in Minab with Tomahawk missiles, killing “some 175 civilians,” and says Milanović argued that even if it was a mistake linked to overreliance on AI, it would still violate the precaution obligation to verify targets.

Context and background

Malik’s analysis traces the evolution of legal restraints on war from “just war” doctrines to modern treaty law. It describes how efforts to limit conflict developed through instruments and institutions including the Hague Convention I (1907), the League of Nations (1919–46), and the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), culminating in the UN Charter adopted on June 26, 1945.

For wartime conduct, the article points to the Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols I and II (1977) as central sources of international humanitarian law, emphasising that these rules apply across conflicts on the principle of the “equality of belligerents.”

To illustrate disputes over anticipatory self-defence, Malik references Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor and notes that UN Security Council Resolution 487 (1981) condemned that strike as inconsistent with the UN Charter. The analysis also references the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and quotes a legal opinion by former UK attorney general Lord Goldsmith stressing that self-defence requires an “actual or imminent threat.”

Details and evidence cited in the analysis

Targeting senior leadership

On the first day of the war, the article says Israel targeted Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It argues he may be a lawful target because Iran’s constitution grants the Supreme Leader “supreme command of the armed forces,” including authority to appoint and dismiss senior military leadership. However, it adds that family members are not lawful targets and any harm to them would count as collateral damage in a proportionality assessment.

Oil infrastructure as a military objective

The analysis says the US has argued that “war-sustaining” targets can qualify as military objectives because revenue can support military operations, but notes this view is contested. It states that the US, Israel and Iran have targeted oil production sites in the conflict and argues it is unclear whether the relevant oil fields were used to sustain military action—making such strikes “likely unlawful” even under a broad US interpretation.

How proportionality and precaution are assessed

Malik cites the legal definition of an indiscriminate attack as one expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive relative to the “concrete and direct military advantage anticipated,” and notes the difficulty of such balancing. On precaution, the article says parties must take feasible steps to verify targets and minimise civilian harm, including choosing tactics and timing that reduce risk and providing warnings when feasible—while also questioning whether warnings are meaningful when civilians cannot leave.

Current status / what happens next

The article does not report official findings by a court or UN body, but frames the conflict as raising continuing legal questions under both the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. It says any Iranian response in self-defence would remain constrained by necessity and proportionality, and identifies unresolved factual questions—such as whether Gulf states permitted their territory to be used for attacks on Iran before the first strikes—as relevant to assessing the legality of any expansion of hostilities.