The escalating armed conflict between the United States of America and Iran has plunged the region into crisis, gripping global attention as the skies over the Middle East are shrouded in smoke and fumes. Rarely has any country come out in open support of the US-Israel. Britain has reluctantly agreed to share its airbase for ‘specific and limited defensive purposes’. Each country, regardless of its geopolitical location and participation in war, is being affected by the changes in the scenario brought about by wilful destruction on both sides. What began on February 28, 2026, as a “limited”, pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and IRGC command centers has spiralled into an escalated war-like situation with Iranian missiles raining on US bases in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. While the US claims self-defense and humanitarian grounds, this conflict flouts UN Charter jus ad bellum and Geneva jus in bello norms, eroding the post-1945 order.
What may have seemed to the US as a one-sided, few-day conflict is turning into a potential global nightmare. The Strait of Hormuz is a choke point that accounts for 20% of global oil transit. A considerable share of oil is supplied to various Asian states, including China, India, and others. Owing to the current conflict, tankers in the Strait of Hormuz are evading Iranian mines, as global oil prices have spiked to $120 per barrel. The strikes also threaten Gulf desalination plants, exacerbating water scarcity for 100 million locals and indirectly impacting global food and energy chains. It has become rather challenging for the world to allow this war to happen, but there is no other recourse; China, Russia, Turkey and Brazil have condemned the US-Israel for this armed conflict, while India has urged de-escalation without naming any country.
US President Trump stated that this operation was a pre-emptive measure for self-defense. As Iran was approaching weapons-grade levels per the IAEA, it heightened pre-emption claims. IAEA reported Iran at 60% enrichment in Feb 2026, a “short step” to 90% weapons-grade. Previously, especially since the 1979 change of government, Iran has raised slogans of “death to America” and “death to Israel”. Successful Uranium enrichment could have been an existential crisis for Israel and the United States. In addition to the justification of pre-emptive attack, US President Trump invoked “humanitarian intervention” in March 2 speech. Through his tweets, he called upon the Iranian population to take charge and change the arbitrary Islamic regime. The US justified these attacks by arguing the human rights status in Iran.
Examining the legality of the initiation and conduct of the armed conflict, the UN Charter prohibits the use of force under Article 2(4), which bars threats or acts of aggression against another state’s territorial integrity. The US and Israel, as stated earlier, intend to justify their actions under Article 51’s Inherent Right of Individual or Collective Self-Defence, citing the proxy attacks on US forces in Iraq and Syria and support for Hezbollah strikes on Israel. The current provocation, if any, falls short of an imminent “armed attack”, which is a prerogative of invoking Article 51 in the context of anticipatory self-defense. The Caroline doctrine, arising from 1837 US-UK diplomatic correspondence, is now part of customary international law. The same establishes the standard for anticipatory self-defense, requiring that the necessity of self-defense be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.” The binding nature of this customary rule governing the use of force has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v United States (1986). The second argument of the US-Israel for legitimizing this conflict is the justification of humanitarian intervention for regime change and protection of Human Rights. Art. 2(7) mandates non-intervention in domestic jurisdiction. The United Nations considers each Sovereign State equal, and any intervention or armed conflict is deeply discouraged. Unilateral humanitarian intervention is not recognized in international law. Although States attempt to justify this intervention under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), but without the Security Council’s approval, the legality remains highly disputed. For the sake of argument, even if the US’s intention were lawful, jus in bello demands scrutiny. International Humanitarian Law in the Geneva Conventions demands the principle of Distinction and proportionality. The States must always distinguish between combatants and civilians. The core rule is contained in Art. 48, 51, and 52 of the Additional Protocol I (1977). The target of military operations should be legitimate military objectives, not civilians, schools, hospitals, or residential buildings; these, amongst others, should be protected. Further, Article 51(5)(b) of the Additional Protocol I lays down that even when attacking a legitimate military target, the attack should be proportional. The military gains must not be outweighed by civilian damage. Art 57 also requires commanders to take precautionary measures.
As reported from various sources, including human rights monitors, 165 civilian deaths of school children in a single school bombing in a primary school in Minab on March 1st have been exposed. So far, over 1200 civilian deaths in Iran have been reported. This is a potential war crime under ICC Rome Statute Art. 8. The indiscriminate Iranian missiles on Gulf bases and places for human dwelling, including hotels, cannot be justified.
In June 2025, the US, along with Israel, launched ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’ on Iran, in which large-scale attacks on Iran’s main nuclear sites were conducted. The US president claimed that the strikes have completely and totally ‘obliterated’ the program. Later, the US government stated that some centrifuges/stockpiles survived, and no complete dismantlement occurred. In any case, Iran was on the negotiation table and years away from a nuclear program. No threat of ‘imminent attack’ is evident from the claims of US officials. In fact, the UN Security Council’s emergency session (Feb 28–March 1) saw Russia and China push an ‘immediate and unconditional ceasefire,’ but no vote occurred amid anticipated US/UK blocking, preventing any binding de-escalation.
Iranians have witnessed blatant human rights infringements at the hands of their own government for many years. Since 2022, the protests have increasingly taken on a violent form. Masha Amini’s case of 2022, when a 22-year-old girl was killed in police custody after allegedly violating hijab laws, sparked the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests. As per Amnesty, around 500 protesters were killed. The most recent and shocking massacre was of the protesters in January 2026. According to Human Rights Watch, 2,500 to 4,000 protesters were killed in a period of 48 hours between January 8 and 9, 2026. Also, the Iranian government-related estimates cited by Reuters reported ‘at least 5000’ deaths during the protests. Also, according to HRANA, around 53,000 people have been arrested since December 2025, including journalists, human rights activists, and ethnic minorities. The question, however, remains: how can a State, let alone interfere, cause external aggression on humanitarian grounds? How far can powerful countries use human rights as a political tool to topple governments they dislike? This is not the first time that human rights have been invoked to justify external military intervention. Iraq and Afghanistan have seen similar interventions from the US in 2003 and 2001, respectively, citing concerns of human rights/Weapons of Mass Destruction. The 2003 Iraq invasion, in particular, was widely regarded as unlawful under international law, including by then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who stated in 2004 that it was ‘not in conformity with the UN Charter’. The International Criminal Court examined alleged war crimes in Afghanistan post-2023, though legal scholars pointed out breaches of the UN Charter, but the ICC did not rule on the legality of initiating these interventions. The current actions of Israel and the US cannot be explained and justified under the current international law regime. We are looking at the blatant violation of arrangements between States after the Second World War, as codified in international law.
In academia and on theoretical grounds, the authority of international law in the absence of a sovereign has often been questioned and challenged by various jurists, primarily from the positivist school. Without getting into the long academic debate, it can be deduced that international law indeed rests upon pacta sunt servanda, that is, agreements must be kept. As Cersei Lannister, in Game of Thrones, warned, “When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die.” And in our world, the losers aren’t just rival houses; they’re civilians caught in the crossfire, and the entire rules-based order that has staved off global catastrophe since 1945.
Shobhitabh Srivastava is an Assistant Professor of Law at India International University of Legal Education and Research in Goa, India. He specializes in corporate law, international trade law, and alternative dispute resolution. His doctoral research focuses on international commercial arbitration. He is a member of the Institute of Transnational Arbitration (ITA) and serves on the editorial boards of several legal journals.
