Lead: More than 100 international law specialists published an open letter this week accusing the United States, Israel and Iran of serious breaches of international law in the current Middle East conflict. The signatories say recent military strikes and public threats—including high-level statements from US officials—undermine the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on force except in self-defence or with Security Council authorization. They singled out a deadly strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab, southern Iran, where at least 168 people were reported killed, as an example that may amount to a war crime if recklessness is proven. The White House rejected the criticism, saying US actions reduce threats in the region.
Key takeaways
- Over 100 experts on international law signed an open letter expressing “profound concern” about conduct by the US, Israel and Iran in the conflict, citing breaches of the UN Charter and humanitarian law.
- The destroyed Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab was reported to have at least 168 victims; US officials are investigating whether a US strike caused the damage.
- Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) reported 1,606 civilian deaths in Iran since the conflict began, including at least 244 children.
- Lebanon’s health ministry reported 1,345 killed in Israeli strikes since 2 March; Israeli emergency services report 19 civilian deaths from missile attacks originating in Iran and Lebanon.
- Gulf-state authorities reported at least 24 deaths from Iranian strikes across the region, including seven in Kuwait and 12 in the UAE (one a contractor in Bahrain).
- The experts criticised rhetoric from senior US figures—citing presidential threats to “obliterate” Iranian facilities and Defence Department language about giving “no quarter”—as inconsistent with the law of armed conflict.
- The US Department of Defense has opened an investigation into the Minab school strike; signatories warned reckless conduct could meet the threshold for war crimes.
Background
The conflict escalated after a series of strikes and counterstrikes between Iran, Israel and US forces and their partners. Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, states may not use force except for self-defence or with Security Council authorization; experts say recent decisions and public statements risk sidestepping that framework. International humanitarian law (IHL) — the body of law that governs conduct in armed conflict — aims to limit harm to civilians and to protect those hors de combat, including surrendering fighters and the wounded.
Signatories of the open letter include former and current legal advisers and academics: Jonathan Tracy (former US Army judge advocate), Harold Hongju Koh (former State Department legal adviser) and Oona A. Hathaway (Yale Law School), among many others. Their intervention follows documented civilian losses across multiple countries and growing public scrutiny of both battlefield conduct and political rhetoric. States involved in the fighting have competing security narratives: the US and Israel frame strikes as targeting threats; Iran and its proxies portray actions as resistance or retaliation.
Main event
The letter, circulated this week, catalogues what the authors describe as unlawful uses of force and alarming public statements by senior officials. It argues that unilateral attacks beyond clear self-defence risk violating the UN Charter and eroding norms that protect civilians and combatants alike. The experts highlighted the Minab school strike as emblematic: at least 168 people were reported killed at the facility, which is adjacent to an IRGC base, and initial evidence prompted the US Department of Defense to open an inquiry.
Signatories also pointed to explicit wartime rhetoric. They criticised a White House ally’s comment urging that “no quarter” be given to enemies, a phrase that, if acted upon, runs afoul of long-standing prohibitions in the law of armed conflict. President Donald Trump’s public threats to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants were cited as an example of language that may increase risks to protected civilian infrastructure.
The White House responded with forceful denials of the letter’s premise. In public statements it portrayed US actions as defensive measures intended to remove short- and long-term threats to American forces and regional partners, while accusing Iran of sponsoring terrorism and internal repression over decades. Meanwhile, casualty figures from multiple sources continue to mount, with significant civilian tolls reported in Iran, Lebanon, Israel and Gulf states.
Analysis & implications
Legally, the experts’ claims hinge on two thresholds: whether force was used outside recognized self-defence or UN authorization, and whether conduct or statements amount to grave breaches of IHL. If investigations substantiate that strikes were launched with recklessness toward civilian life, those actions could meet the international definition of war crimes. Proving criminal responsibility requires clear evidence tying decision-makers or operators to unlawful orders or negligent targeting practices.
Politically, the letter raises the prospect of reputational and diplomatic costs for governments implicated in alleged violations. Accusations of unlawful force can complicate alliances, fuel international condemnation, and invite counterclaims in international fora. Yet enforcement is constrained: the Security Council is often divided in crises of this sort, and states implicated in the fighting are unlikely to submit voluntarily to external jurisdiction.
Practically, continued incendiary rhetoric raises operational risks on the ground. Public threats against critical infrastructure can encourage reciprocal targeting, increase civilian displacement, and make de-confliction harder for humanitarian actors. The prospect of prolonged legal and political fallout may push some states to seek diplomatic avenues to contain escalation, but the immediate battlefield dynamic shows persistent tit-for-tat attacks.
Comparison & data
| Source / Location | Reported civilian deaths |
|---|---|
| Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) — Iran | 1,606 (incl. 244 children) |
| Lebanon Ministry of Health — Lebanon | 1,345 (since 2 March) |
| Israeli emergency services — Israel | 19 (from missile attacks) |
| Gulf states (officials) — Gulf | 24 (security personnel & workers) |
The table aggregates publicly reported civilian casualty counts referenced by the experts and national authorities. Differences in methodology, timing and access mean tallies are provisional and do not capture battlefield combatant deaths or the displaced. Independent verification is often limited in active combat zones; NGOs and UN agencies typically update figures as access and investigations permit. Readers should treat these headcounts as the best available public estimates at the time of reporting.
Reactions & quotes
“We are gravely concerned that recent conduct and threats are causing serious harm to civilians and risk degrading the rule of law,”
Open letter signed by international law experts (legal community)
“The United States is making the region safer by removing imminent threats,”
White House statement (official)
“Somewhere along the way the rules have been thrown aside,”
Tom Fletcher, UN humanitarian chief (UN official)
Unconfirmed
- Attribution for the Minab school strike remains under investigation; while growing evidence has suggested a US strike is possible, official conclusions are pending.
- Whether particular public statements will meet legal standards for criminal responsibility depends on proof of linkage to specific operations or orders—this remains unproven.
- Casualty counts cited are provisional and may change as additional verification and reporting occur.
Bottom line
The experts’ open letter elevates the legal and moral stakes of the conflict by framing recent actions and rhetoric as potential breaches of international law. Independent investigations—by national authorities, international bodies or impartial fact-finders—will be central to determining accountability for major incidents such as the Minab school strike.
In the near term, expect diplomatic pressure for transparency and for mechanisms to protect civilians to be amplified by states and humanitarian actors. Longer-term consequences could include legal proceedings, shifts in alliance politics, and renewed debate about how to enforce IHL when major powers are implicated in contested strikes.
Sources
- BBC News — international media report summarising the open letter and reactions.
- U.S. Department of Defense — official statements and investigation notices (official).
- The White House — public statements from US administration (official).
- Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) — NGO reporting on civilian casualties in Iran (NGO).
- Lebanon Ministry of Public Health — official casualty reporting (government).