menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

The Iran Strikes And The Legal Debate That Misses The Bigger Question

44 0
09.03.2026

In recent days, as debates over the legality of armed attacks by US–Israel-led strikes on Iranian leadership have unfolded, I have found myself reading large amounts of Western legal analysis on the law of armed conflict. What I increasingly experience while doing so is not clarity but discomfort. The doctrinal language is precise, the citations extensive, and the reasoning carefully structured. Yet the framing of the questions themselves often feels strangely narrow.

The scholars and writers first take a moral high ground by asserting that the attack by the US and Israel on Iran is illegal (which genuinely it is, and this is very basic and foundational), and then go on to scrutinise every act committed by Iran in its defence. Meaning thereby, the scrutiny is not how US–Israel forces are violating the fundamentals of international law, and particularly international humanitarian law, but rather how Iran is violating the set norms and principles.

In these discussions, there was an inquiry into whether particular individuals, military commanders, intelligence officials, or even political leaders in Iran were lawful targets under the law of armed conflict. The legality of the broader use of force fades into the background. Even when scholars acknowledge that the initial resort to force may violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the analytical focus is on determining whether subsequent strikes remain lawful under international humanitarian law.

However, the question is doctrinally correct in a technical sense. International law separates jus ad bellum, the law governing the legality of resorting to force, from jus in bello, the rules governing conduct during armed conflict. A state may therefore wage an unlawful war while still complying with the rules of targeting, proportionality, and distinction.

Yet when legal analysis focuses overwhelmingly on the latter, it risks creating a curious inversion: the legality of killing becomes the central problem, while the legality of the war itself........

© The Friday Times