Introduction
Following the commencement of military attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran on the morning of Saturday, February 28, 2026, a wave of targeted and large-scale operations affected parts of Iran’s territory, particularly urban and densely populated areas. These attacks, which simultaneously targeted various infrastructures across different parts of the country, reportedly resulted in significant civilian casualties, including women and children, as well as extensive damage to civilian property and infrastructure. In response, officials of the United States and Israel attempted to frame the legitimacy of their actions within the context of security and military considerations by invoking justifications such as the proximity of the targeted sites to military and security installations, the alleged connection of certain areas to Iran’s missile and nuclear infrastructure, and claims regarding the presence or deployment of armed forces within residential neighborhoods.
Nevertheless, the invocation of such arguments in the context of contemporary armed conflicts once again raises fundamental questions concerning the framework of state obligations under international law, particularly international humanitarian law. In this regard, core principles such as the principle of distinction between military and civilian objects, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of military necessity emerge as normative pillars governing the conduct of parties to a conflict. Any departure from these principles, especially in circumstances leading to extensive harm to the civilian population or vital infrastructure, may give rise to international state responsibility and even warrant consideration of the commission of serious violations of humanitarian law, including war crimes. From this perspective, examining the various dimensions of these attacks requires not only a careful analysis of field data and conflicting narratives, but also a legal assessment grounded in established international standards and the practice of competent institutions—an exercise that may help clarify the boundary between security-based claims and binding legal obligations in the context of one of the most complex crises of the contemporary era.
Incidents
In the wake of extensive military strikes carried out by the United States and Israel across various regions of Iran, the humanitarian dimensions of these operations rapidly came under intense scrutiny. This is largely due to the sheer scale and scope of the attacks, which targeted a wide range of military and civilian sites. The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has reported that, in just over one month, approximately 13,000 targets were struck across Iran. By comparison, New Lines Magazine, which has documented U.S. military engagements for over a decade, noted that during the most intense phase of the campaign against ISIS, the average number of targets struck in Iraq and Syria combined was approximately 800 per month. This stark disparity underscores the unprecedented scale of the operations conducted against Iran and, consequently, highlights the significant civilian casualties and extensive destruction inflicted upon non-military and residential areas[1].
- Civilian Areas
Assessments indicate that as of April 15, 2026, approximately 138,000 homes had been damaged, of which more than 3,000 residential units were completely destroyed. Of these, around 40% were located in Tehran, amounting to 39,585 housing units[2]. The overall financial damage—excluding losses to urban infrastructure—has been estimated at approximately $310 million[3].
In addition, despite repeated justifications by U.S. and Israeli officials—such as proximity to military installations, alleged links to missile and nuclear infrastructure, and claims of armed presence within residential zones—the scope of damage to civilian areas in rural regions has also been significant. According to Abdolkarim Hosseinzadeh, Vice President for Rural Development and Deprived Areas, 5,189 civilian units in rural Iran were damaged during the war, of which 211 were completely destroyed[4].
- Civilian Casualties
Reports on human casualties present a deeply alarming picture of the consequences of these attacks. The head of Iran’s Forensic Medicine Organization stated on April 9, 2026, that more than 3,000 individuals had been killed across Iran during the war. In parallel, human rights sources reported that approximately 3,636 people had lost their lives by that date, of whom 1,701 were civilians, including at least 254 children[5].
Available data further indicates that among the deceased were 251 women, 216 children under the age of 18, and 17 children under the age of five. Additionally, 26 members of medical and emergency response personnel were also killed[6].
Reports from Iranian domestic media indicate a high number of injuries as well. According to figures cited from the Ministry of Health, 30,723 individuals were treated in hospitals, including 4,989 women, 1,997 children under 18, and 70 children under the age of two[7]. Among the injured women, the youngest was a one-month-old infant, while the oldest was a 100-year-old woman[8].
Furthermore, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, approximately 7,252 individuals were rescued from under debris during nearly 6,000 rescue operations conducted by its personnel alone[9]. Naturally, if data from other organizations were included, the total number of rescued civilians would likely be even higher—an indication of the extensive targeting of residential areas.
Challenges and Responses
- Principle of Military Necessity
The principle of military necessity, as one of the foundational principles of international humanitarian law, requires that any military action must be necessary to achieve a specific and legitimate military objective, while avoiding unnecessary actions that cause superfluous suffering. In essence, this principle permits a party to a conflict to employ only that degree and kind of force required to defeat the enemy; therefore, excessive or unnecessary use of force is prohibited[10].
In the context of the recent attacks, a fundamental question arises as to whether the targeting of certain urban centers, economic infrastructure, and even dual-use facilities genuinely met the threshold of military necessity. This question becomes particularly pressing in cases where reports suggest that certain security facilities had been evacuated prior to being struck, or where civilian infrastructure—such as bridges, energy facilities, or administrative buildings—was targeted despite uncertainty regarding their direct and immediate military function.
Under such circumstances, if it can be demonstrated that the targeted objectives did not play a decisive and immediate role in military operations, such actions may be considered violations of the principle of necessity, potentially giving rise to the international responsibility of the attacking states.
- Principle of Proportionality
The principle of proportionality in international humanitarian law requires that even when a military objective is legitimate, the incidental harm inflicted on civilians and civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Within the framework of the attacks under examination, the high number of civilian casualties, the widespread destruction of residential areas, and damage to critical infrastructure raise serious concerns as to whether a proportional balance was maintained between the claimed military advantage and the human and material costs incurred. This concern is particularly acute in densely populated urban areas—especially in Tehran—where attacks resulted in the deaths of women, children, and even emergency responders.
Moreover, the use of heavy explosive munitions in urban environments, leading to the complete destruction of buildings and damage to surrounding areas, may indicate a failure to respect this principle. The use of explosive weapons—ranging from aerial bombs and artillery shells to mortars, rockets, and missiles—in populated areas is widely recognized as one of the gravest threats to civilians in contemporary armed conflicts. Such weapons significantly increase the risk to both civilians and civilian objects in cities, towns, and villages[11].
If disproportionality is established, such actions may constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law and could potentially be examined as instances of war crimes.
- Principle of Distinction
In modern battlefields, distinguishing between those who are participating in hostilities and those who are not has become increasingly complex. The line between civilian and military functions has become blurred, creating greater uncertainty in the proper application of the principle of distinction[12].
The principle of distinction, which finds its origins in the Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868[13], obliges parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between military objectives and civilian persons and objects, directing operations only against legitimate military targets.
In light of reports concerning attacks on residential areas, healthcare facilities, schools, and urban infrastructure in Iran, a critical question arises as to whether this distinction was effectively observed in target selection. While U.S. and Israeli officials have sought to justify such attacks by invoking the dual-use nature of certain targets or their proximity to military installations, the scale of civilian casualties and destruction of civilian structures suggests significant challenges in the proper implementation of this principle.
This concern is particularly acute in cases where attacks were conducted in densely populated areas or where residential buildings were targeted in order to eliminate specific individuals. In such scenarios, the risk of violating the principle of distinction is significantly heightened. If it is established that targeting was carried out without sufficient precision or without effective distinction between civilians and military objectives, such conduct may constitute a serious violation of international humanitarian law and provide grounds for international accountability.
- Domestic Reactions
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, a U.S.-based data organization, addressed attacks on civilian locations in Iran in one of its reports. According to this report, deadly strikes on civilian sites—including an elementary school in Minab and a sports hall in Lamerd—have become emblematic of the human cost of the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran. However, such attacks on civilian sites without clear military objectives do not appear to constitute the dominant pattern of the broader military campaign.
In targeted strikes on residential buildings aimed at assassinating government officials, security personnel, and scientists associated with military and nuclear programs, civilians were repeatedly harmed. ACLED has recorded approximately 50 such incidents. These attacks often targeted multi-story residential buildings where the intended individuals resided or were temporarily present. While some strikes were limited to specific floors, in other cases the use of heavy munitions led to the complete destruction of buildings and damage to surrounding structures. These attacks resulted not only in the deaths of intended targets but also in casualties among family members—including children—and neighbors, making them among the deadliest incidents for civilians.
The most common pattern of civilian harm involved nearly 100 cases in which civilians were killed or injured due to blast waves from strikes targeting security or governmental facilities in densely populated areas. These targets included police units, Basij centers, and local administrative buildings. In many instances, such facilities had reportedly been evacuated prior to the attacks. Some of these strikes caused severe damage to adjacent residential buildings and healthcare facilities, raising serious questions about the military value of these targets relative to their human cost[14].
The widely recognized publication Time also examined public reactions within the United States. According to recent polling data from institutions such as Reuters, CNN, and CBS, a majority of Americans oppose the Trump administration’s military strikes against Iran. The data indicates that opposition significantly outweighs support, with only a minority endorsing the action.
At the same time, a deep partisan divide is evident: while a majority of Republicans support the strikes, Democrats and independents are largely opposed. Many respondents believe that the government has failed to provide a clear explanation of the war’s objectives and that prolonged conflict—especially if it involves the deployment of ground troops—could further erode public support. A significant portion of public opinion also emphasizes the necessity of obtaining congressional authorization for continued military operations. These divisions have extended beyond polling data, manifesting in anti-war protests across various cities, alongside support from certain groups—reflecting a profound societal divide within the United States regarding the war[15].
The analytical outlet CounterPunch, in a report dated April 10, 2026, discussed an international statement signed by over 170 academic, political, and civil society figures from 30 countries. The signatories strongly criticized U.S. foreign policy and the war against Iran, arguing that the United States has historically acted as an interventionist power contributing to global conflicts and crises. They described the current war as a continuation of this pattern and as part of a broader effort to dominate global resources.
The statement condemned U.S. and Israeli military actions against Iran as violations of international law and national sovereignty, calling for an immediate end to the war. It also outlined a set of demands, including guarantees against further attacks, the dismantling of U.S. military bases in the region, compensation for damages, recognition of Iran’s sovereignty, and reform of the legal framework governing the Strait of Hormuz. The authors framed the current moment as a historical turning point and called for the emergence of a new international order based on justice and sovereign equality[16].
- International Reactions
The Iranian news outlet Fararu examined the combined effects of the U.S.–Israeli war and long-standing sanctions on the daily lives of ordinary Iranians. According to this report, the 40-day war, alongside 26 years of sanctions, has imposed profound economic and livelihood consequences. Initial government estimates place the total damage of the war at approximately $270 billion, a figure comparable to decades of oil-related sanctions.
During this short period, significant portions of the country’s economic infrastructure—including steel, petrochemical, oil, and gas industries—were severely damaged, leading to a loss of productive capacity. Widespread destruction of transportation infrastructure, airports, bridges, and railways, along with damage to thousands of residential, commercial, and administrative units, has further intensified economic pressure. This has occurred in a context where Iran’s economy was already strained by long-term sanctions, declining oil revenues, economic stagnation, and high inflation. Over the past decade, purchasing power has reportedly declined by approximately 67%, contributing to rising poverty, the erosion of the middle class, and widening social inequalities.
Experiences from countries such as Iraq suggest that the combined effects of war and sanctions can lead to the collapse of economic infrastructure, shortages of essential goods, and a decline in overall living standards. Taken together, these factors demonstrate that the interaction between war and sanctions produces deeply destructive consequences for the daily lives of ordinary people and that recovery will require substantial time and resources[17].
The prominent British newspaper The Guardian, in a timeline report published on March 22, 2026, examined the targeting of civilian sites and the suffering of civilians. The report, titled “Civilians bear the brunt of the weeks-long U.S.–Israeli campaign,” notes that nearly a month after the start of the attacks, a war initially framed as an effort to contain Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities has, in practice, imposed its heaviest burden on civilians.
From the early days of the conflict, deadly strikes on schools, sports facilities, and hospitals resulted in hundreds of casualties and triggered a wave of displacement from Tehran. Subsequent bombardment of energy infrastructure, environmental pollution, and damage to historical sites disrupted daily life and destroyed thousands of homes and service centers. Simultaneously, shortages of medicine, fuel, and electricity, combined with rising inflation and economic pressure, have significantly worsened living conditions. As tensions escalate and threats emerge regarding further attacks on critical infrastructure and the Strait of Hormuz, concerns about the future trajectory of the conflict have intensified, raising fears that the scale of harm to civilians may further expand[18].
Finally, the BBC reported on civilian fatalities, highlighting personal narratives as emblematic of the human cost of the war. Among the victims were individuals such as Parastesh Dehaghian, a young pharmacist killed while working in her pharmacy in Tehran, and Berivan Molani, a 26-year-old blogger who died in her sleep due to falling debris. Children were also among the casualties, including Ilma Bilki, a three-year-old who succumbed to injuries sustained in the attacks.
Due to internet shutdowns and severe information restrictions, only a fraction of victims’ identities has been publicly documented, leaving many stories untold. Reports indicate that more than 1,400 civilians have been killed, approximately 15% of whom were children, with one of the deadliest incidents being a missile strike on a school in Minab. International organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the World Health Organization have warned that civilians are paying an “alarming” price for the war and that attacks on healthcare facilities constitute clear violations of international law.
As hospitals suffer damage and medical personnel operate under extreme pressure, many civilians find themselves trapped between the threat of bombardment and internal hardships—a situation that starkly illustrates the depth of the humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict[19].
Conclusion
An examination of field data, reports by independent institutions, and legal analyses indicates that although the overall pattern of attacks has ostensibly been presented as focused on military and security objectives, their practical consequences have extensively spilled over into the civilian sphere. The high concentration of targets within urban environments, the use of explosive weapons in densely populated areas, and the repeated targeting in proximity to—or within—civilian infrastructure have significantly blurred the line between military objectives and civilian spaces.
Under such conditions, the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law—particularly distinction, proportionality, and military necessity—have faced serious challenges not only at the theoretical level but also in their practical implementation. The high number of human casualties, widespread destruction of residential areas and vital infrastructure, and damage to healthcare and service facilities reinforce a central question: whether the legal standards governing conduct in armed conflict have been properly observed, or whether military considerations have overridden humanitarian and legal obligations.
At the same time, domestic and international reactions reflect the emergence of a broad critical discourse concerning the legitimacy, necessity, and consequences of the war—a discourse extending from public opinion to academic elites and human rights institutions. Moreover, the interaction between war and sanctions has imposed compounded pressure on the economic and livelihood structures of society, transforming the crisis from a purely military confrontation into a multi-layered humanitarian–economic condition. This situation demonstrates that the effects of war are not confined to the battlefield but deeply permeate the everyday lives of civilians.
Ultimately, the continuation of such a trajectory may not only result in further humanitarian and legal consequences but may also erode the foundational norms of international law, thereby generating more profound challenges for the global legal order and the framework of collective security.
References
[1] Osieck, C., & Tabrizy, N. (2026, April 13). US-Israeli Attacks on Iran Show a Pattern of ‘Double-Tap’ Strikes. New Line Magazine. From: https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/us-israeli-attacks-on-iran-show-a-pattern-of-double-tap-strikes/
[2] Eghtesad News. (2026, April 15). New Figures on War-Damaged Residential Units in Tehran. Eghtesad News. From: https://www.eghtesadnews.com/fa/tiny/news-780467
[3] Ghadiri, F. (2026, April 15). Donya-e-Eqtesad Examines Iraq’s Postwar Reconstruction Model; A Comparison of Residential Damages in the Eight-Year War and the “Ramadan” War. Donya-e-Eqtesad. From: https://donya-e-eqtesad.com/fa/tiny/news-4264197
[4] Fararu. (2026, April 16). Latest Figures on Rural Fatalities in the Ramadan War. Fararu. From: https://fararu.com/fa/tiny/news-963268
[5] Abdallah, N., & Alaaeldin, M. (2026, April 10). How many people have been killed in the Iran war. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/how-many-people-have-been-killed-us-israel-war-iran-2026-04-07/
[6] Fararu. (2026, April 4). Latest Civilian Casualty Figures of the War. Fararu. From: https://fararu.com/fa/tiny/news-960325
[7] Asriran. (2026, April 10). Latest Figures on Women and Children Killed and Injured in the 40-Day War. Asriran. From: asriran.com/004qUR
[8] Khabar Foori. (2026, March 26). Civilian Injury Figures Announced in the Ramadan War. Khabar Foori. From: https://www.khabarfoori.com/fa/tiny/news-3202916
[9] Tabnak. (2026, April 14). Figures on Survivors of the Ramadan War Attacks. Tabnak. From: https://www.tabnak.ir/005jf6
[10] Médecins Sans Frontières. (n.d). The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law, Military Necessity. Médecins Sans Frontières. From: https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/military-necessity/
[11] HRW. (2026, April 8). Questions and Answers: US, Israel, Iran, and the Laws of War. HRW. From: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/04/08/questions-and-answers-us-israel-iran-and-the-laws-of-war#q8
[12] IHL Centre. (n.d). The principle of distinction, Protecting civilians and civilian objects during armed conflict. IHL Centre. From: https://www.diakonia.se/ihl/resources/international-humanitarian-law/principle-of-distinction-protection-of-people-and-objects/
[13] Ribbenvik, A. (2018). The Principle of Distinction in Modern Warfare. Lund University. From: https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/8965916
[14] ACLED. (2026, April 2). Iran: Where and how US-Israeli strikes are harming civilians. ACLED. From: https://acleddata.com/report/iran-where-and-how-us-israeli-strikes-are-harming-civilians
[15] Lee, C., & Jeyaretnam, M. (2026, March 4). How Americans Feel About Trump’s War With Iran, According to the Latest Polls. TIME. From: https://time.com/7382231/iran-us-israel-war-support-polling-trump-republicans-democrats/
[16] CounterPunch. (2026, April 10). Six Non-Negotiable Terms From International Scholars and Former Officials From 30 Countries to End the U.S. War on Iran Amid Trump’s Threat of War Crimes. CounterPunch. From: https://www.counterpunch.org/2026/04/10/six-non-negotiable-terms-from-international-scholars-and-former-officials-from-30-countries-to-end-the-u-s-war-on-iran-amid-trumps-threat-of-war-crimes/
[17] Fararu. (2026, April 16). Forty Days of War and Twenty-Six Years of Sanctions: Their Devastating Effects on Civilian Life. Fararu. From: https://fararu.com/fa/tiny/news-963277
[18] Osuh, C. (2026, March 22). Iran war timeline: civilians bear brunt of US and Israel’s weeks-long campaign. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/22/iran-war-timeline-civilians-bear-brunt-of-us-and-israels-month-long-campaign
[19] Hawley, C., & Pakzad, S. (2026, March 23). A committed pharmacist and a homesick blogger – the Iranian civilians killed in the war. BBC. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v6ld7lv9no
