Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

The legality of U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran

March 05, 2026 5 min read International Relations Polity & Governance GS2 (International Relations IR frameworks)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • The United States and Israel launched coordinated military strikes on Iran on February 28, 2026, designated Operation Roaring Lion (Israel) and Operation Epic Fury (US), citing a "pre-emptive" response to an imminent threat
  • The strikes killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and resulted in at least 1,230 casualties in the initial days
  • A missile strike on a girls' primary school and attacks near Gandhi Hospital in Tehran — which was fully evacuated including babies in incubators — raised serious concerns about violations of International Humanitarian Law
  • The US justified the action under Article 51 of the UN Charter (self-defence), but international legal experts broadly characterised the strikes as a violation of Article 2(4) — the prohibition on the use of force

Static Topic Bridges

UN Charter: Article 2(4) and the Prohibition on Use of Force

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter obliges all member states to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." This is one of the foundational norms of the post-World War II international legal order. The only recognised exceptions are: (a) collective or individual self-defence under Article 51, and (b) Security Council authorisation under Chapter VII. Any use of force that falls outside these exceptions is illegal under international law.

  • Article 51 permits self-defence only when "an armed attack occurs" — the plain text requires an actual, not hypothetical, attack
  • The Caroline Doctrine (1837) from customary international law permits anticipatory self-defence only when a threat is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means" — a very high threshold
  • The UN Secretary-General described the strikes as having "squandered a chance for diplomacy"; UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul stated the strikes lack any valid legal justification under Article 51
  • Russia and China both have veto power in the Security Council, making UNSC authorisation politically unlikely in this scenario

Connection to this news: The US invoked Article 51, claiming pre-emptive self-defence against an imminent Iranian threat. Legal experts counter that no armed attack by Iran had occurred and the pre-emptive justification does not meet the Caroline threshold, making the strikes a prima facie violation of Article 2(4).

International Humanitarian Law: Principles of Distinction, Proportionality, and Precaution

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), codified primarily in the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977), governs the conduct of armed conflict. Three cardinal principles protect civilians: (1) Distinction — parties must distinguish between combatants/military objectives and civilians/civilian objects at all times; (2) Proportionality — incidental civilian harm must not be excessive relative to anticipated military advantage; (3) Precaution — all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid civilian casualties. Hospitals and schools enjoy special protection under IHL and are presumed to retain civilian status even in conflict zones unless they make an effective contribution to military action.

  • The Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I Article 12 specifically protect medical units and establishments
  • Attacks on hospitals and schools that cause civilian casualties can constitute war crimes, triggering individual criminal responsibility under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
  • The ICRC stated that "attacks affecting humanitarian centres were prohibited under international law"
  • WHO Director-General Tedros wrote that "health facilities are protected under international humanitarian law" while calling for protection of facilities in the conflict

Connection to this news: The evacuation of Gandhi Hospital after nearby explosions, the destruction of its IVF department, and the missile strike on a girls' primary school are being investigated for possible violations of IHL's principles of distinction and precaution. The Iranian Red Crescent has submitted damage documentation to the ICRC for potential legal proceedings.

The UN Security Council and Its Structural Limitations

The UN Security Council (UNSC) is the primary body for authorising the use of force and maintaining international peace and security under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However, the UNSC's effectiveness is constrained by the veto power of its five permanent members (P5: US, UK, France, Russia, China). When a P5 member is itself a party to a conflict — or aligned with one party — the Security Council is often paralysed. This structural limitation has been a recurring critique, particularly in conflicts involving P5 members or their close allies.

  • Emergency UNSC meetings were convened on the Middle East military escalation in early March 2026
  • The US, as a P5 member, can veto any resolution that would condemn or authorise action against itself or Israel
  • This situation has renewed debates about UNSC reform — including proposals for limiting veto power in cases of mass atrocities (the "ACT Code of Conduct" initiative)
  • India has consistently supported UNSC reform, including a permanent seat for itself, as part of its foreign policy

Connection to this news: The inability of the UNSC to take effective action against the US-Israel strikes — due to the US veto — has reinvigorated debates about the body's structural inadequacies and the need for reform of the post-WWII global governance architecture.

Key Facts & Data

  • Operation dates: US-Israel strikes on Iran began February 28, 2026
  • Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei was killed in the strikes
  • Death toll in Iran: at least 1,230 as of early March 2026
  • Gandhi Hospital in Tehran's northern district was fully evacuated; its IVF department was destroyed
  • WHO confirmed reports of damage to three additional medical centres beyond Gandhi Hospital
  • Article 2(4), UN Charter: Prohibition on the use of force (foundational international law norm)
  • Article 51, UN Charter: Self-defence exception — requires an "armed attack" to have occurred
  • Caroline Doctrine (1837): Customary international law standard for anticipatory self-defence — threat must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice"
  • Geneva Conventions: Hospital protection codified in Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) and Additional Protocol I (1977)
  • The Rome Statute's Article 8 defines attacks on hospitals as potential war crimes
  • India abstained from the UNSC emergency vote (consistent with its policy of non-alignment in bloc-based conflicts)