Iran war: Did the US and Israel break international law? | DW News

Key Concepts

• International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The body of law that governs the conduct of armed conflict, specifically protecting civilians and civilian infrastructure.
• United Nations Charter: The foundational treaty of the UN, which restricts the use of force by member states to self-defense or Security Council authorization.
• Civilian Infrastructure: Essential facilities such as bridges, power plants, water treatment plants, schools, and hospitals, which are protected under international law.
• Imminence: A legal threshold in international law required to justify preemptive self-defense; it requires an immediate, unavoidable threat.
• Escalation Ladder: A strategic concept describing the progression of a conflict toward higher levels of intensity and destruction.
• Rules of Engagement (ROE): Internal military directives that define the circumstances and limitations under which forces can initiate combat.

---

1. Escalation of Military Objectives

The conflict between the United States/Israel and Iran has shifted from initial military objectives to a campaign targeting civilian infrastructure. President Donald Trump has explicitly threatened to destroy Iran’s remaining infrastructure, including electrical power plants and bridges, with the stated goal of forcing the Iranian leadership to submit.

• Key Targets: Recent strikes have destroyed a major suspension bridge linking Karaj to Tehran and two of Iran’s largest steel plants.
• Retaliation: Iran has threatened to target energy and water facilities across the Gulf in response to these attacks.
• Strategic Assessment: Professor Fawaz Gerges (London School of Economics) characterizes the U.S./Israeli strategy as "delusional," arguing that destroying state capabilities (schools, universities, pharmaceuticals) will not force surrender but rather entrap the U.S. in a complex, escalating conflict.

2. Legal Challenges and International Law

An open letter signed by over 100 legal scholars from institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Stanford asserts that the U.S.-led campaign violates the UN Charter and international humanitarian law.

• Violation of the UN Charter: Scholars argue the war lacks legal justification, as it was not authorized by the UN Security Council, nor does it meet the criteria for self-defense.
• The "Imminence" Standard: Professor Oona Hathaway (Yale Law School) clarifies that "imminence" requires an immediate, unavoidable threat (e.g., tanks on a border). She notes that the U.S. has provided no evidence of an imminent attack, and the President’s claim of "47 years of imminence" does not satisfy the legal threshold.
• War Crimes: The intentional targeting of civilian objects—such as the reported destruction of a primary school in Minab, which resulted in 170 deaths—raises serious concerns regarding war crimes. Proving such crimes requires evidence of intent or reckless disregard for civilian life.

3. Diplomatic Stagnation and Geopolitical Impact

There is currently a total absence of diplomatic communication between the U.S. and Iran.

• Lack of Interlocutors: Intelligence services from the U.S., Germany, and Gulf nations confirm that Iran refuses to engage in diplomatic talks under current conditions.
• Global Economic Risks: The conflict threatens the global economy through potential disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz, rising energy prices, and inflation.
• The Role of External Actors: Professor Gerges notes a "vacuum of mediation." He criticizes European nations for failing to challenge the U.S. and notes that China remains passive, preferring to see the U.S. remain "boxed in" and overextended in the region.

4. Notable Statements

• President Donald Trump: Stated his intent to "bomb Iran to take it back to the stone ages," emphasizing that the U.S. military "hasn't even started destroying what's left."
• Iranian Foreign Ministry: Rejected calls for a ceasefire, demanding a "complete end to the war" and "comprehensive guarantees" against future aggression.
• Professor Oona Hathaway: "It’s not just that they’re interpreting the law in ways that we find implausible... It’s that they seem to be prepared to throw the law out altogether."
• Professor Fawaz Gerges: "We are on an escalation ladder that what comes next is much worse than we have seen in the past four weeks."

Synthesis and Conclusion

The conflict has entered a dangerous second phase characterized by the systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure, which legal experts warn constitutes a violation of international law and potential war crimes. With no diplomatic channels open and a lack of international mediation, the situation is trapped in an "escalation ladder." The strategy of using economic and physical destruction to force regime submission is viewed by experts as strategically flawed, risking long-term regional instability and significant global economic shocks.