Over 100 US legal experts condemn strikes on Iran as possible ‘war crimes’
More than 100 prominent United States–based international law experts have issued a stark warning regarding recent American and Israeli military strikes on Iran, describing them as possible war crimes and clear violations of international law.
The scholars’ condemnation, delivered through a jointly signed open letter, has reignited global debate over the legality of modern warfare, civilian protection, and the limits of military power under international humanitarian law.
As the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran escalates in early 2026, legal experts argue that this moment marks a dangerous erosion of established legal norms that have governed armed conflict since World War II. Their concerns go beyond battlefield actions, encompassing official rhetoric, decision‑making processes, and the dismantling of safeguards meant to protect civilians.
Who Are the Legal Experts Speaking Out?
The letter was signed by professors, former government legal advisers, military law specialists, and leaders of international legal institutions, many of whom have advised US administrations or international bodies in the past.
Among the signatories are legal scholars affiliated with Harvard University, Yale Law School, Stanford University, Columbia University, New York University, and the University of California system. Several contributors previously worked with the US State Department, Pentagon, United Nations, or organizations such as Human Rights Watch.
What makes this condemnation particularly significant is not only the number of experts involved, but their professional proximity to US power. These are not outside critics, but individuals deeply embedded in the American legal and security establishment.
Their collective message is clear: the current military campaign against Iran threatens to undermine the entire international legal order.
The Core Legal Claim: Violation of the UN Charter
At the heart of the experts’ warning lies a fundamental principle of international law — the United Nations Charter.
Under Article 2(4) of the Charter, the use of force against another state is prohibited except in two limited circumstances:
- Self‑defense against an actual or imminent armed attack
- Authorization by the UN Security Council
According to the legal scholars, neither condition was met when the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran beginning on February 28, 2026.
The letter asserts that:
- Iran did not launch an armed attack on the US or Israel prior to the strikes
- No UN Security Council authorization was granted
- Claims of “pre‑emptive self‑defense” lack credible evidence of imminence
In plain terms, the experts argue that the war itself may be illegal from its inception, making all subsequent actions legally suspect.
Civilian Casualties at the Center of the Debate
The Minab School Strike
One of the most disturbing incidents cited by the experts is a missile strike on a primary school in Minab, southern Iran, on the first day of the conflict.
According to humanitarian organizations and Iranian emergency services:
- At least 175 people were killed
- The majority of victims were children
- The school was not located near a known military installation
Legal experts highlight this attack as raising serious concerns under the principle of distinction, which requires combatants to differentiate between military targets and civilians.
If the strike was carried out:
- Without sufficient intelligence
- With reckless disregard for civilian life
- Or in a disproportionate manner
It could meet the legal threshold for a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.
What International Humanitarian Law Requires
International humanitarian law (IHL) governs how wars are fought. Even when a war is deemed lawful, specific rules still apply.
Key principles include:
1. Distinction
Military forces must distinguish between:
- Combatants and civilians
- Military objectives and civilian objects
Schools, hospitals, homes, and water facilities are presumptively civilian.
2. Proportionality
An attack is prohibited if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to military advantage.
3. Precaution
Parties must take all feasible steps to minimize civilian harm, including verifying targets and choosing weapons carefully.
The open letter asserts that repeated strikes on civilian infrastructure, including:
- Schools
- Health facilities
- Water plants
- Energy infrastructure
suggest potential systemic violations, not isolated mistakes.
Rhetoric from US Officials Raises Additional Concerns
Beyond physical attacks, legal experts express alarm over public statements made by senior US officials, arguing that rhetoric can have legal consequences.
Statements highlighted in the letter include:
- Remarks suggesting strikes could be carried out “just for fun”
- Threats to destroy civilian infrastructure such as power plants and bridges
- Dismissal of traditional “rules of engagement” as “stupid”
According to international law scholars, such comments may:
- Signal intent or recklessness
- Undermine internal safeguards within the military
- Be used as evidence of command responsibility
Words matter in armed conflict, particularly when spoken by individuals with direct authority over military operations.
The Dismantling of Civilian Protection Mechanisms
The experts also point to internal policy changes within the US defense establishment, describing what they call a “gloves‑off” approach to warfare.
They warn that:
- Civilian harm mitigation teams have been weakened
- Legal review processes have been sidelined
- Emphasis has shifted from legality to lethality
Such changes, they argue, increase the likelihood of civilian casualties and legal violations.
This concern resonates with past conflicts, where the removal of internal checks led to systemic abuses rather than isolated incidents.
US Government Response and Military Investigations
The US Department of Defense has defended the campaign, stating that:
- Civilian harm is not intentional
- Investigations are underway into specific incidents
- Iran bears responsibility for using civilian areas
However, legal experts emphasize that intent alone is not sufficient under international law. Recklessness, negligence, or failure to take precautions can also amount to war crimes.
An ongoing investigation into the Minab school strike has reportedly acknowledged the likelihood of US responsibility, further intensifying scrutiny.
Broader Geopolitical and Legal Implications
Impact on International Law
If powerful states bypass international legal constraints without consequences, experts warn that:
- Smaller states may follow suit
- The UN Charter system could unravel
- Civilian protections may erode globally
This concern echoes longstanding fears that selective application of international law weakens its legitimacy.
Domestic Legal Risks
Some experts note potential issues under US domestic law, including:
- Congressional authorization requirements
- The War Powers Resolution
- Constitutional limits on executive authority
If challenged in court or Congress, the conflict could trigger significant legal and political fallout.
Why This Letter Matters Historically
Open letters by legal scholars are not uncommon, but this one stands out due to:
- The scale of participation
- The seniority of the signatories
- The clarity of the legal accusations
Historically, similar interventions preceded major shifts in public opinion during:
- The Vietnam War
- The Iraq War
- The global “War on Terror”
Experts suggest this letter may serve as an early legal record, potentially cited in future investigations or international proceedings.
What Happens Next?
The trajectory of the conflict and its legal consequences remain uncertain. Possible outcomes include:
- Expansion of independent investigations
- Increased international pressure
- Formal inquiries by UN bodies
- Long‑term reputational damage for involved states
Legal scholars emphasize that accountability does not expire, even if political attention moves on.
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for the Rule of Law
The condemnation by over 100 US legal experts is more than a political statement — it is a legal warning of historic significance.
At stake is not only the fate of civilians in Iran, but the future credibility of international law itself. If violations go unaddressed, the rules meant to protect humanity in times of war risk becoming optional rather than binding.
As conflicts grow increasingly complex and technologically advanced, the need for legal restraint becomes more urgent — not less. Whether global leaders choose to listen may determine how wars are fought, and judged, in the years to come.
About the Author
