A retired US Top Gun piolt named Matthew Buckley recently explained how the Israeli Air Force managed to eliminate senior Iranian leaders in Tehran with the Blue Sparrow missile. The Blue Sparrow is a re-entry missile that can be launched from an aerial fighter jet towards outer space. It can operate with a high-speed vertical re-entry into enemy airspace towards a chosen military target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP335qp8diY

In an extremely ironic twist, the Blue Sparrow was however actually invented to become a flexible option for Israel’s missile defence testing scenarios!

According to publicly available documentation, Rafael Advanced Defence Systems describes the Blue Sparrow as one of its 3 different Sparrow Targets missiles. The Blue Sparrow has been utilised as a testing medium for the US/Israeli Arrow Missile Defence System and is said to have performed flawlessly so far. The Blue Sparrow missile can be loaded with different warhead types depending on the mission – water, inert or high explosives.

The missile can be launched above land and over sea in order to simulate target trajectories, re-entry maneuvers and signatures of various ballistic missiles. In fact this test missile is said to simulate a SCUD-C/D missile. The missile could re-enter with either a ballistic, barrel roll or maneuver re-entry type and is also equipped with an autonomous flight termination system.

This high profile elimination mission raises many technical and legal aspects which are worth unpacking in order to close the knowledge gaps between social media viewers, international media outlets and military law academics.

International Law Classification of Blue Sparrow

– Anticipatory Self Defence Enacted To Defend Against Unlawful Threats And Unlawful Uses of Force

According to Article 51 of the UN Charter “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

Within International Law the default point of departure of the Jus Ad Bellum is actually Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which describes the general prohibition of the Use of Force between states. Accordingly, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Iran’s anti-Israel agenda is nothing new. In 2005, the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated at The World Without Zionism conference in Tehran that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth!

This is just one of many similar genocidal threats made by Iran against Israel. In 2017 a countdown clock was erected in Tehran to threaten Israel’s destruction by 2040. In June 2023 a large billboard was erected in Tehran to threaten Israel with 400 seconds between hypersonic Fatah missiles and Tel Aviv’s annihilation.

Iran has also been said to be funding and equipping the ring of fire containing Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis, all of which have been militarily active against Israel since the October 7 massacre in 2023. They were especially enraged throughout the Twelve Day War between Israel and Iran in 2025 especially in retaliation to Operation Midnight Hammer which blasted Iranian nuclear infrastructure.

Israel’s attack on Iranian military objectives in Iran could most likely be constructed as Anticipatory Self Defence as opposed to an Armed Attack, which would then justify Iran’s actions as Self Defence.

Middle East Monitor has already admitted this possibility in the lead-up to the Twelve Day War (2025) by stating that “another concept that Israel may resort to is anticipatory self-defence. Although not explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter, it is recognised as part of customary international law by many and thus, it must be upheld and respected. However, even this concept has strict conditions. It permits self-defence only in cases where an imminent threat exists and all other means of defence have been exhausted.

– A Weapon System In an air and missile context, a weapon system in its totality does indeed constitute a means of warfare per Rule 1(t) of the HPCR Manual, as ‘means of warfare’ is defined to mean weapons, weapon systems or platforms employed for the purposes of attack. The 2010 HPCR Manual Commentary elaborates on this point as a weapon system consists of one or more weapons with all related equipment, materials, services, means of delivery and means of deployment.

– Incorporating a Missile The St Petersburg Declaration bans bursting ammunition with a weight below 400 grams. However, against this set legal threshold, HPCR expert Bruno Demeyere expressly stated that missiles weigh more than this and that missiles also constitute bursting ammunition.

Article 18 of the Hague Rules of Air Warfare further reinforces the use of missiles generally stating that the use of tracer, incendiary or explosive projectiles by or against air is not prohibited.

Demeyere explains that – unlike other weapons which are used in international armed conflicts missiles had not even been defined in legal literature. Missiles were not defined in any treaty and therefore, according to Demeyere, it was not actually possible to view missiles from anything more than the point of view of military doctrine.

Demeyere states that no treaty addresses missiles nor have states ever attempted to address missiles in a treaty. This however does not place missiles into a black hole or vacuum as they are still weapons the use of which must be regulated by and judged against the laws of war, especially the jus in bello relating to weaponry and conduct of hostilities.

In 2009, Rule 1(z) of the HPCR Manual closed this gap with an authoritive manual based definition – self propelled unmanned weapons – launched from aircraft, warships or land- based launchers that are either guided or ballistic.

– Which is Precise, Guided and Air To Surface 

The HPCR Manual explains the difference between a guided missile and a ballistic missile, stating that a guided missile is technologically designed with a built-in contingency or second-chance mechanism. A guided missile can be diverted, if a civilian was to intervene in the pathway between the missile and the legitimate military target. Demeyere outlines the main characteristic of ballistic missiles stating that they conversely rely solely on gravity once fired.

Demeyere however noted that there is no actual difference in legality between guided missiles and ballistic missiles and that no statement can be made generally that a guided missile will perform in a more legal manner than a ballistic missile.

The HPCR Manual Commentary emphasises this point by stating that there is no express obligation in either treaty or customary law to utilise expensive precision-guided weapons. Accordingly, both types of missiles are fundamentally legal but both could be utilised in a legal or illegal manner.

Therefore, apart from being precise or imprecise in nature as well as being either guided or ballistic, the HPCR Manual Commentary further classifies missiles as being surface-to-surface, surface-to-air, air-to-surface or air-to-air.

– Launching Into Outer Space with a Re-Entry Path in Enemy Airspace Stephan Hobe explained that airspace is the space above the earth’s surface and the medium which facilitates international air and missile law. Airspace is essentially the medium through which missiles are launched and aircraft fly.

While Hobe acknowledges that airspace is not entirely conclusive it is different to the concept of territory in Public International Law. Airspace is formally defined by Rule 1(a) of the HPCR Manual as the air up to the highest altitude at which an aircraft can fly and below the lowest possible perigee of an earth satellite in orbit.

This rule further acknowledges two airspace categories – sovereign national airspace as well as international airspace which is not subject to the sovereignty of any state.

Hobe states that the horizontal limit of national airspace is set at national borders that surround state territory, territorial seas and archipelagic waters. According to Jan Wouters and Bruno Demeyere, the vertical limit of airspace is academically disputed However Hobe states that it is generally agreed to exist at a point called the Von Karman line which is situated at the edge of space 100 Kilometers above sea level.

Article 40 of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare expressly prohibits belligerent military aircraft from entering the jurisdiction of a neutral state. However upon a deeper look into the literature, Article 40 of the 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare was said by HPCR core expert Michael Bothe to prohibit flight objects such as rockets and missiles from entering neutral national airspace.

Demeyere analytically defined the three regular regions in which missile operations may take place, namely a belligerent’s own national airspace, the enemy’s national airspace and international airspace.

Demeyere further stated that missile transmissions through outer space (even over neutral states) are also valid as a fourth region due to a loophole in the wording of the 1967 Treaty of Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including The Moon and Celestial Bodies.

Demeyere further emphasised the absolute inviolability of neutral state airspace for missile transmissions.

Missile transmissions through neutral airspace are prohibited if they are launched from within a neutral state or even pass through neutral airspace for a short period of time.

Missile transmissions through neutral airspace are also prohibited even if the military target is located outside the neutral state. This prohibition cannot be waived even if the neutral state consents to such an unlawful penetration of its airspace.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)