War Without Law: A Legal and Humanitarian Assessment of the 2026 United States and Israel War against Iran

Mahdi Baeidi Nejad

PhD Student in International Relations, University of Isfahan

Introduction

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a coordinated series of airstrikes across several Iranian cities, marking the beginning of one of the most serious military escalations in the region in recent years. The first wave of the attack centered on the capital, Tehran, with strikes targeting the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, alongside several senior military and political officials, leading to their assassinations and triggering widespread alarm throughout the country. The scale, precision, and timing of these initial strikes signaled not a limited or symbolic operation, but the opening phase of a broader and sustained military campaign.

As the hostilities unfolded in the days that followed, the geographic scope of the attacks expanded beyond the capital to include multiple regions, reflecting a rapid escalation in both intensity and reach. What initially appeared to be targeted strikes against high-level figures and strategic sites soon evolved into a pattern of operations that increasingly affected civilian environments and urban infrastructure. Residential neighborhoods, public services, and essential infrastructure were exposed to blast waves, fires, and indirect damage, disrupting everyday life for millions of ordinary citizens. The transition from targeted military action to widespread societal impact underscores the extent to which the conflict quickly moved beyond conventional battlefield dynamics and began to reshape the broader humanitarian landscape within Iran. This report seeks to provide a comprehensive legal and humanitarian assessment of the unfolding conflict, examining its conformity with international law and documenting its impact on civilians, cultural heritage, healthcare systems, and the natural environment.

A War of Choice: Questioning the Legality and Rationality of the Use of Force

The legality and rationality of this war are profoundly doubtful. Under the United Nations Charter, force may be used only in two narrow circumstances: with Security Council authorization or in self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack under Article 51. In the days immediately preceding the strikes of 28 February 2026, however, the public record pointed in the opposite direction: talks mediated by Oman were still underway, both sides were discussing the elements of an agreement, and Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said a peace deal was “within our reach,” describing unprecedented movement by Iran, including “zero stockpiling” and “full and comprehensive verification” by the IAEA. The Associated Press and Reuters later reported that U.S. officials privately told congressional staff there was no intelligence indicating that Iran was preparing to strike the United States first, even though the administration publicly invoked “imminent threats” to justify the attack. That contradiction is legally significant: the mere existence of a missile programme, military capability, or a long-term strategic rivalry does not by itself create a lawful basis for launching war. On these facts, the operation appears far closer to a war of choice than an act of lawful necessity. It is therefore difficult to avoid the conclusion that Iran was engaged at the negotiating table while military preparations were proceeding in parallel, a sequence that raises grave concerns of bad-faith diplomacy, unlawful use of force, and a direct assault on the Charter framework designed to prevent unilateral wars. Reporting has also indicated that Israeli and Saudi pressure helped move Trump toward the decision to attack, reinforcing the view that this was a discretionary geopolitical intervention rather than a legally compelled act of defense.

These concerns have also been echoed by leading international law scholars. Professor Ben Saul, an expert in international law, emphasized that international law does not permit states to use force simply to eliminate a perceived future threat, noting that strikes against another country’s capabilities—such as nuclear infrastructure or missile programmes—are unlawful unless carried out in response to an actual or truly imminent armed attack. Similarly, Yusra Suedi, Assistant Professor of International Law at the University of Manchester, stated that there are grounds to believe the attacks against Iran may amount to a crime of aggression, stressing that “this was an act of use of force that was unjustified.” These assessments reinforce the growing view among legal experts that the strikes fall outside the narrow exceptions permitted under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, raising serious doubts about their legality under international law.

Sovereignty Under Assault: Non-Interference and the Targeting of Political Leadership

The events surrounding the conflict have also reignited longstanding concerns regarding respect for state sovereignty and the prohibition of external interference in the internal affairs of states, principles that lie at the heart of the modern international legal order. The United Nations Charter, particularly Articles 2(1) and 2(4), affirms the sovereign equality of states and prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Actions that seek to influence leadership structures, undermine governmental authority, or directly target state officials raise serious legal and ethical concerns in relation to the principle of self-determination, which guarantees that peoples have the right to determine their own political future free from external coercion.

Within this context, the escalation also involved the assassination of Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on 28 February 2026, who had served as Iran’s Supreme Leader since 1989 and was widely regarded as one of the most prominent religious authorities within the global Shiʿa community. Targeting the sitting head of a sovereign state—who also held profound religious significance for millions of believers—represents not only a direct attack on the political leadership of a nation but also a serious affront to the principles of sovereignty and non-interference enshrined in the UN Charter. Beyond its immediate political implications, such an act reverberates far beyond national borders, affecting religious communities worldwide and constituting a grave challenge to the dignity, stability, and sovereign authority of the Iranian state.

The Minab School Tragedy and Its Legal Implications: A crime against humanity?

The aggressive war has reportedly produced devastating consequences for children and educational institutions. On the first day of the conflict, 28 February 2026, a strike hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ primary school in Minab, located in Hormozgan province, killing large numbers of students between the ages of 7 and 12. Following investigations and the examination of available evidence, almost all independent media outlets have attributed responsibility for the attack to the United States, with serious debate emerging around whether the strike was deliberate or the result of outdated or misidentified targeting information. Regardless of the intent, a number of international legal experts have described the incident as a potential war crime under international humanitarian law, particularly in light of the protections afforded to civilian objects such as schools under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Iranian media sources report that approximately 170 innocent children lost their lives in the attack. Classrooms—spaces meant for learning, safety, and the promise of the future—were transformed into sites of tragedy. These young students, who had absolutely no connection to the conduct of hostilities, represent some of the most vulnerable victims of the conflict, and their killing constitutes a grave violation of the fundamental principles of civilian protection in armed conflict.

Cultural Heritage at Risk: Destruction of Historical Identity and International Responsibility

One of the most alarming developments during the course of the conflict has been the damage inflicted on cultural heritage sites and historic urban landscapes. Reports indicate that explosions in Tehran damaged parts of the Golestan Palace complex, a UNESCO World Heritage Site dating back to the Qajar period, while other historically significant locations in Isfahan, including areas near the Masjed-e Jame, Chehel Sotoun Palace, and districts surrounding the Naqsh-e Jahan Square cultural ensemble, were also exposed to blast waves and surrounding destruction. Additional heritage areas in Qazvin and Khorramabad, including the historic districts near the Sa’d al-Saltaneh Caravanserai and the ancient Falak-ol-Aflak Fortress, have likewise reportedly experienced shockwaves and damage to nearby structures. Concerns have also been raised regarding the vulnerability of other major historic landmarks in Isfahan, such as the Ali Qapu Palace and the historic bazaar areas connected to the Safavid urban complex, which form part of one of the most important cultural landscapes in the Middle East.

These monuments represent not only architectural heritage but centuries of collective cultural memory, identity, and historical continuity. Their destruction or degradation constitutes a loss not only for Iran but for the shared cultural patrimony of humanity.

The targeting of areas containing cultural monuments also raises serious concerns under international law. Cultural property is specifically protected by the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, which obliges parties to safeguard historic sites and prohibits attacks against them unless they are used for military purposes. These protections are reinforced by Article 53 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids acts of hostility directed at historic monuments, works of art, and places of worship that form part of the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples. Moreover, under the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, sites such as Golestan Palace and the Masjed-e Jame of Isfahan are recognized as part of humanity’s shared heritage and therefore warrant international protection. Any damage to such monuments thus raises not only national concerns but also broader issues of global cultural responsibility and accountability, as safeguarding cultural heritage during armed conflict is a fundamental obligation toward preserving humanity’s historical legacy for future generations.

Hospitals Under Fire: The Erosion of Medical Neutrality in Armed Conflict

Medical facilities have also been severely affected. In Tehran, the Gandhi Hospital was evacuated after nearby explosions damaged surrounding infrastructure and shattered parts of the building. Reports also indicate potential damage to the Motahari Hospital and pressure on emergency medical centers in other cities such as Hamadan and Sarab, forcing healthcare workers to relocate patients under extremely dangerous conditions. Aljazeera and Iranian media outlets including Mehr News agency reported that emergency medical services across several provinces were placed on heightened alert as hospitals attempted to relocate patients and maintain critical services amid ongoing air raid warnings.

Hospitals and medical personnel are protected under international humanitarian law precisely because they are essential to preserving life during conflict. Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, particularly the First Geneva Convention (Articles 19 and 24), as well as the Additional Protocol I (Articles 12 and 15), medical units, hospitals, and healthcare personnel enjoy special protection and must not be the object of attack. The World Health Organization and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have also repeatedly emphasized that attacks affecting healthcare infrastructure may amount to grave breaches of international humanitarian law, particularly when they foreseeably deprive civilians of access to lifesaving medical care. Any military operation that compromises the functioning of medical facilities and medical transports or endangers patients and medical staff may therefore constitute a serious violation of the laws governing armed conflict.

War in the City: Civilian Spaces, Urban Destruction, and the Law of Armed Conflict

In addition to these incidents, airstrikes have repeatedly struck densely populated urban areas, exposing residential neighborhoods to blast waves, fires, and structural collapse. Reports from Iranian English-language outlets such as Press TV have documented damage to residential districts in Tehran, Karaj, and parts of central and southern provinces, where explosions near military or infrastructure targets caused surrounding apartment blocks and civilian buildings to sustain heavy damage. In several cases, electricity grids and municipal infrastructure were disrupted, leading to interruptions in electricity, water supply, and telecommunications services, while emergency response teams struggled to evacuate civilians from damaged structures.

Such impacts are not merely incidental consequences of warfare but raise serious concerns under the principle of distinction and proportionality, two foundational rules of international humanitarian law codified in Articles 48 and 51 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. These provisions require parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between civilian populations and military objectives and prohibit attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military advantage. When strikes repeatedly affect residential areas and civilian infrastructure, the legal threshold of indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks may be implicated, exposing civilian populations to severe physical danger as well as the prolonged psychological trauma associated with sustained aerial bombardment.

Ecocide and environmental Devastation: War Beyond the Battlefield

Beyond the immediate human toll, the conflict has generated serious environmental consequences. Massive fires at petroleum storage facilities in Tehran’s Shahran and Shahr-e Rey fuel depots, reported by New York Post and Tasnim News Agency, released dense clouds of toxic smoke across large parts of the capital and surrounding areas. Environmental monitoring agencies warned about the phenomenon described as “black rain,” formed when pollutants from burning fuel combine with atmospheric moisture and fall back to the ground as contaminated precipitation. Such events represent not only immediate environmental damage but potentially long-term ecological devastation, contaminating air, soil, and water resources while exposing civilian populations to hazardous chemicals and severe public-health risks.

These developments bring renewed attention to the emerging concept of ecocide, increasingly discussed in international legal and environmental policy circles as the widespread, severe, or long-term destruction of ecosystems. In recent years, prominent legal initiatives—including proposals supported by jurists and international environmental organizations—have sought to recognize ecocide as an international crime comparable in gravity to genocide or crimes against humanity. Under existing international humanitarian law, Articles 35(3) and 55 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions prohibit methods of warfare expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment. The scale of pollution generated by the destruction of fuel infrastructure raises concerns that the environmental harm produced may extend far beyond the duration of the conflict itself.

Targeting Energy Systems: Economic Infrastructure and Humanitarian Consequences

Separately, the targeting of economic and energy infrastructure, including oil depots and fuel storage facilities, carries far-reaching humanitarian, environmental, and legal implications. Such facilities are not merely strategic economic assets; they constitute a critical backbone of civilian life, supplying energy necessary for electricity generation, heating, transportation, healthcare systems, and water distribution networks. Their destruction therefore has cascading and often immediate effects on the functioning of society, disrupting essential services and placing already vulnerable populations at heightened risk.

Reports, including those covered by CNBC and other international outlets, indicate that strikes on major fuel storage sites triggered large-scale fires and prolonged combustion, releasing dense plumes of toxic smoke across urban areas. These incidents not only degrade air quality but also threaten to contaminate soil and groundwater systems, particularly in densely populated regions. The scale and persistence of these fires have led some environmental observers and analysts to raise concerns that chemical accelerants or specialized munitions may have been employed, potentially intensifying both the environmental and public-health consequences, although independent verification of such claims remains ongoing.

From a humanitarian perspective, the disruption of energy infrastructure can have indirect but severe impacts on civilian populations. Interruptions in electricity supply may impair hospital operations, refrigeration of medicines, and access to clean water, while fuel shortages can hinder emergency response, food distribution, and basic mobility. In this sense, attacks on energy systems risk transforming economic targets into de facto civilian crises, where the burden of destruction is borne primarily by the population rather than by military actors.

Legally, such actions raise serious questions under international humanitarian law, particularly the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. While certain energy facilities may be considered dual-use objects, any attack against them must still ensure that incidental civilian harm is not excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage, as articulated in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Moreover, when the foreseeable consequences of an attack include widespread environmental contamination or disruption of essential civilian services, the operation may also engage protections under Articles 35 and 55 of Additional Protocol I, which prohibit methods of warfare expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment.

In this context, the destruction of energy infrastructure cannot be viewed solely through a strategic or military lens. It must also be assessed in light of its broader humanitarian and ecological consequences, particularly where such actions risk crossing the threshold from lawful military targeting into disproportionate harm to civilian life and environmental integrity, thereby engaging potential international responsibility.

Digital Warfare and Civilian Life: Cyber Operations and Their Legal Implications

Parallel to the physical attacks, cyber operations have also targeted civilian communication platforms and digital services. According to Reuters, several Iranian websites and applications—including banking applications and other widely used platforms such as BadeSaba, along with government service portals and media outlets—were reportedly hacked, disrupting information systems relied upon by millions of users for daily activities. Reports by Reuters indicate that cyberattacks affected multiple sectors, including media websites, public information platforms, and communication services, causing temporary shutdowns and widespread disruption.

These operations carry significant humanitarian implications. In modern societies, digital infrastructure underpins essential services ranging from public communication and emergency alerts to financial transactions and health information systems. Disrupting such systems during an armed conflict can therefore significantly affect civilian life. International law increasingly recognizes that cyber operations must also respect international humanitarian law principles, including the protection of civilian objects and the prohibition of attacks expected to cause disproportionate harm to civilians. The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, widely referenced in international legal scholarship, affirms that cyber operations targeting civilian infrastructure during armed conflict may violate the principles of distinction and proportionality when they disrupt services essential to civilian populations.

War Beyond Borders: The IRIS Dena Incident and the Expansion of Hostilities at Sea

The conflict has also extended beyond Iranian territory. On 4 March 2026, the Iranian naval vessel IRIS Dena, reportedly unarmed, unloaded, and not engaged in combat operations, was struck without prior warning by a U.S. submarine near the southern coast of Sri Lanka, close to the port city of Galle, while returning to Iran after participating in the MILAN naval exercises in India. Sri Lankan authorities reported recovering dozens of bodies and rescuing surviving sailors after the vessel sank.

This incident raises important questions under the law of naval warfare and the broader rules governing the use of force at sea. Under customary international humanitarian law and instruments such as the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, attacks against vessels must comply with the principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality, and belligerents are generally required to verify the military status of a vessel before launching an attack. If a vessel is not actively participating in hostilities and does not present an immediate military threat, its targeting may raise serious concerns regarding the lawfulness of the use of force. The sinking of a vessel carrying personnel returning from an international naval exercise therefore introduces complex legal questions regarding the extension of hostilities beyond the immediate theatre of conflict and the legality of maritime attacks in international waters.

Economic Warfare and Civilian Suffering: The Legacy of Maximum Pressure Sanctions

In addition to the direct military hostilities, the conflict must also be understood within the broader context of the long-standing economic pressure imposed on Iran through extensive sanctions regimes, particularly by the United States. Beginning in 2018, the administration of President Donald Trump launched what it explicitly termed the “Maximum Pressure” campaign, re-imposing and expanding sweeping sanctions targeting Iran’s banking sector, oil exports, shipping industry, and international financial transactions. These measures effectively curtailed Iran’s access to global markets and significantly restricted its ability to conduct ordinary economic activity. In recent remarks, senior U.S. officials—including Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent—have openly acknowledged that the strategy was designed to place extraordinary economic pressure on Iranian society in order to force political change, a position that underscores the deliberate use of economic instruments as tools of coercive statecraft. While sanctions are often framed as legitimate foreign policy tools, a growing body of legal scholarship and international human rights advocacy has characterized broad, comprehensive sanctions of this nature as a form of economic warfare, particularly when their consequences fall primarily on civilian populations. United Nations human rights mechanisms, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, have repeatedly warned that such measures can severely restrict access to medicine, food supplies, financial services, and essential public infrastructure, raising serious humanitarian concerns. As a result, the scale and persistence of these sanctions have prompted increasing scrutiny regarding their compatibility with international human rights obligations and the principle that civilian populations should not bear the burden of geopolitical disputes.

Conclusion

Taken together, these developments illustrate a conflict whose consequences extend far beyond conventional military objectives, increasingly affecting civilian populations, cultural heritage, healthcare systems, and the natural environment. The cumulative pattern of events—ranging from strikes on urban areas and protected civilian objects to environmental degradation and the erosion of humanitarian safeguards—raises profound concerns about the respect for the foundational principles of international law governing the use of force and the conduct of hostilities.

Viewed in its entirety, the conflict reflects not only a humanitarian crisis but also a systemic challenge to the legal architecture established to regulate armed conflict and preserve international peace and security. The apparent disregard for principles such as distinction, proportionality, necessity, and respect for sovereignty risks setting dangerous precedents that may weaken the normative constraints on the use of force and undermine the credibility of the international legal order itself.

In this context, the recent attacks against Iran can be understood as part of a broader pattern that necessitates urgent scrutiny under international law. Addressing these developments requires not only the immediate de-escalation of hostilities but also the effective protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, in line with established legal obligations. Equally important is the need for independent, impartial, and internationally supervised investigations into incidents involving schools, hospitals, cultural heritage sites, and environmental harm, as well as other alleged violations. Such measures are essential for clarifying responsibility, ensuring accountability, and reinforcing the normative frameworks that underpin international humanitarian and human rights law. Ultimately, meaningful responses by the international community will play a decisive role in mitigating further harm, safeguarding human dignity, and maintaining the credibility of the legal order governing armed conflict.

References

• Al Jazeera. (2026, February 28). Iran confirms Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dead after US-Israeli attacks. Al Jazeera. From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/28/irans-supreme-leader-ali-khamenei-killed-in-us-israeli-attacks-reports
• Al Jazeera. (2026, March 11). Iran reports hospitals, civilians affected during war with US-Israel. Al Jazeera. From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/11/iran-reports-hospitals-civilians-affected-during-war-with-us-israel
• Al-Monitor. (2026, March 1). Israeli strikes hit hospital in Tehran, witnesses tell Reuters. Al-Monitor. From: https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2026/03/israeli-strikes-hit-hospital-tehran-witnesses-tell-reuters
• Amnesty International. (2026, March 11). Middle East: All parties to the conflict must refrain from unlawful attacks on energy infrastructure. Amnesty International. From: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/03/middle-east-all-parties-to-the-conflict-must-refrain-from-unlawful-attacks-on-energy-infrastructure/
• Arafa, Mohamed. (2026, March 6). No authorization, no imminence, no plan: The Iran strikes and the rule of law. JURIST. From: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2026/03/no-authorization-no-imminence-no-plan-the-iran-strikes-and-the-rule-of-law/
• (2019, December 9 Six charts that show how hard US sanctions have hit Iran. BBC. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48119109
• Birnbaum, Michael & Hudson, John & DeYoung, Karen & Allison, Natalie & Mekhennet. (2026, February 28). Push from Saudis, Israel helped move Trump to attack Iran. The Washington Post. https://css.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/28/trump-iran-decision-saudi-arabia-israel/
• Cabrera, Michaela. (2026, March 11). UNESCO fears for fate of historical sites during Iran war. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/unesco-fears-fate-historical-sites-during-iran-war-2026-03-11/
• Davies, Alys & Gardner, Frank. (2026, March 14). Why has the US targeted Iran’s Kharg Island? BBC. From: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jxzlwvd8ro
• De Ruiter, Emma. (2026, March 12). Preliminary inquiry indicates US was responsible for deadly strike on Iranian elementary school. Euronews. From: https://www.euronews.com/2026/03/12/preliminary-inquiry-indicates-us-was-responsible-for-deadly-strike-on-iranian-elementary-s
• Faisal Ali. (2026, March 5). Sri Lanka evacuates crew of second Iranian vessel after US sunk IRIS Dena. Al Jazeera. From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/5/sri-lanka-evacuates-crew-of-second-iranian-vessel-after-us-sunk-iris-dena
• Farge, Emma & Rigby, Jennifer. (2026, March 10). WHO warns of health risks from ‘black rain’ in Iran. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/who-warns-health-risks-black-rain-iran-2026-03-10/
• Farnosh, Amiri. (2026, March 16). Damage to historical sites in Iran raises alarm about war’s impact on protected places. Associated Press. From: https://apnews.com/article/unesco-iran-war-heritage-sites-bff566d6bc1fb7167614b43690277414
• Gampell, Lucy & Badshah, Nadeem & Ambrose, Tom & Ali, Taz. (2026, February 26). US-Iran nuclear talks: Middle East latest news updates. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/feb/26/us-iran-nuclear-talks-middle-east-latest-news-updates
• Gayle, Damien. (2026, March 10). Bombing of Iran’s oil infrastructure to have major environmental fallout, experts warn. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/10/bombing-of-irans-oil-infrastructure-to-have-major-environmental-fallout-experts-warn
• Gharagozlou, Leila. (2025, October 19). How Western sanctions on Iran have hurt the same middle class that drives reform. CNN. From: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/10/19/middleeast/how-western-sanctions-iran-hurt-middle-class-intl
• Harb, Ali & Osgood, Brian. (2026, March 3). Are US-Israeli attacks against Iran legal under international law? Al Jazeera. From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/3/are-us-israeli-attacks-against-iran-legal-under-international-law
  Corder, Mike. (2026, March 3). Iran, US and international law on war and aggression. The Washington Post. From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/03/02/iran-us-international-law-war-aggression/bdc6bf1a-1643-11f1-aef0-0aac8e8e94db_story.html
  Weller, Marc. (2026, March). With Iran attacks: Is President Trump making use of force the new normal and casting aside international law? Chatham House. From: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/03/iran-attacks-president-trump-making-use-force-new-normal-and-casting-aside-international
• Human Rights Watch. (2026, March 12). Iran: US School Attack Findings Show Need for Reform, Accountability. Human Rights Watch. From: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/12/iran-us-school-attack-findings-show-need-for-reform-accountability
• Human Rights Watch. (2026, March 7). US/Israel: Investigate Iran School Attack as a War Crime. Human Rights Watch. From: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/03/07/us/israel-investigate-iran-school-attack-as-a-war-crime
• (2026, March 6). ICOMOS Statement on the Middle East. ICOMOS. From: https://www.icomos.org/actualite/icomos-statement-middle-east/
• ICRC (no individual author):
  International Committee of the Red Cross. (n.d.). Rule 28. Medical units. International Committee of the Red Cross. From: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule28
• International Committee of the Red Cross. (n.d.). Protection of hospitals during armed conflicts: what the law says. International Committee of the Red Cross. From: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflicts-what-law-says
• International Criminal Court (no individual author):
  International Criminal Court. (2024). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. International Criminal Court. From: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf
• Khang, Phan & Nguyen, Thao. (2025, March 6). Hospitals under fire: legal and practical challenges to strengthened protection. ICRC Humanitarian Law & Policy Blog. From: https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2025/03/06/hospitals-under-fire-legal-and-practical-challenges-to-strengthened-protection/
• Lay, Kat. (2026, March 5). At least a dozen hospital and health facilities in Iran hit since US-Israel attacks began, WHO says. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/mar/05/at-least-dozen-hospital-and-health-facilities-in-iran-hit-since-us-israel-attacks-began-who-says
• Mehr News (2026, March 11). US-Israeli attacks damage 153 medical canters in Iran. Mehr News. From: https://en.mehrnews.com/news/242644/US-Israeli-attacks-damage-153-medical-canters-in-Iran
• Northam, Jackie. (2026, February 23). Trump’s sanctions on Iran have dramatically affected its economy and led to protests. WUSF. From: https://www.wusf.org/2026-02-23/trumps-sanctions-on-iran-have-dramatically-affected-its-economy-and-led-to-protests
• Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (n.d.). Special Rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. From: https://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-unilateral-coercive-measures
• Peter, Weber. (2026, March 12). Iran Minab school strike. The Week. From: https://theweek.com/world-news/iran-minab-school-strike
• Press TV. (2026, March 16). In numbers: Civilian toll of US-Israeli aggression against Iran war enters 17th day. Press TV. From: https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/03/16/765466/in-numbers-civilian-toll-us-israeli-aggression-against-iran-war-enters-17th-day
• Press TV. (2026, March 16). Iran says over 61000 civilian buildings damaged in US-Israeli attacks. Press TV. From: https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/03/16/765452/Iran-says-over-61000-civilian-buildings-damaged-in-US-Israeli-attacks
• Press TV. (2026, March 16). Three-day-old infant among four martyred in US-Israeli strike on central Iran village. Press TV. From: https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/03/16/765462/three-day-old-infant-among-four-martyred-us-israeli-strike-central-iran-village
• Price, Michelle L & Jalonick, Mary Clare & Finley, Ben & Federman, Josef & Klepper, David. (2026, March 2). US intel did not suggest a preemptive strike from Iran, officials say. Associated Press. From: https://apnews.com/article/iran-trump-diplomacy-airstrikes-cia-khamenei-talks-d605cf78898ab93fa992b32d0c47da2a
• Rao, Anurag & Zafra, Mariano. (2026, March 10). Strikes create toxic clouds over Tehran. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/graphics/IRAN-CRISIS/MAPS/znpnmelervl/#strikes-create-toxic-clouds-over-tehran
• (2026, January 9). Treasury’s Bessent says Iran facing precarious moment, economy in trouble. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/treasurys-bessent-says-iran-facing-precarious-moment-economy-trouble-2026-01-08/
• (2026, March 11). WHO confirms 18 attacks on healthcare sites in Iran. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/who-confirms-18-attacks-healthcare-sites-iran-2026-03-11/
• (2026, March 2). Tehran hospital evacuated after explosions nearby, WHO says. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/tehran-hospital-evacuated-after-explosions-nearby-who-says-2026-03-02/
• Reyes, Ronny. (2026, March 8). ‘Toxic’ black rain pours down on Tehran, massive fireballs fill skies following Israeli strikes on oil storage sites. New York Post. From: https://nypost.com/2026/03/08/world-news/black-clouds-massive-fireballs-fill-tehran-skies-following-israeli-strikes-on-oil-storage-sites/
• Roth, Andrew., Brown, Cate., Ellis-Petersen, Hannah., & Wipulasena, Aanya. (2026, March 4). US submarine sinks Iranian warship as conflict spreads beyond Middle East. The Guardian. From: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/04/us-submarine-torpedo-iran-warship-sri-lanka-coast-pete-hegseth
• Saaliq, Sheikh & Francis, Krishan. (2026, March 5). Iranian warship sunk by US submarine was in India for a naval drill. Associated Press. From: https://apnews.com/article/iran-warship-iris-dena-india-14916ad657e50f048bbeb42b38224ecb
• Shamim, Sarah. (2026, January 13). How US sanctions crippled lives of Iranians, Trump says he wants to help. Al Jazeera. From: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/13/how-us-sanctions-crippled-lives-of-iranians-trump-says-he-wants-to-help
• Sharma, Saurabh. (2026, March 5). What was the Iranian warship sunk by US torpedo doing near Sri Lanka? Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/iranian-warship-sunk-by-us-torpedo-participated-indian-drill-2026-03-05/
• Stewart, Phil & Pamuk, Humeyra. (2026, March 2). Pentagon tells Congress no sign that Iran was going to attack US first, sources say. Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-tells-congress-no-sign-that-iran-was-going-attack-us-first-sources-say-2026-03-02/
• (2026, March 14). Over 42000 civilian units damaged in US-Israeli war on Iran. Tabnak. From: https://www.tabnak.ir/en/news/7235/over-42000-civilian-units-damaged-in-us-israeli-war-on-iran
• Tasnim News Agency. (2026, March 10). Iran appeals to UN over environmental crisis amid US-Israeli strikes. Tasnim News Agency. From: https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/03/10/3536978/iran-appeals-to-un-over-environmental-crisis-amid-us-israeli-strikes
• Tasnim News Agency. (2026, March 13). Iran strongly warns US against any attack on energy infrastructure. Tasnim News Agency. From: https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/03/13/3539139/iran-strongly-warns-us-against-any-attack-on-energy-infrastructure
• Tasnim News Agency. (2026, March 9). 200 children among 1,255 civilians killed in US-Israeli bombings: Iranian health official. Tasnim News Agency. From: https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/03/09/3536043/200-children-among-1-255-civilians-killed-in-us-israeli-bombings-iranian-health-official
• The Washington Post. (2026, March 8). Video appears to show U.S. Tomahawk hit naval base near Iranian school. The Washington Post. From: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/03/08/iran-school-strike-video-tomahawk/
• (2026, February 16.). Enhanced Protection: Cultural Property of Greatest Importance to Humanity. UNESCO. From: https://www.unesco.org/en/heritage-armed-conflicts/enhanced-protection
• (2026, March 2). UNESCO expresses concern over the protection of cultural heritage sites amidst escalating violence in the Middle East. UNESCO. From: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/unesco-expresses-concern-over-protection-cultural-heritage-sites-amidst-escalating-violence-middle
• (n.d.). 1954 Convention. UNESCO. From: https://www.unesco.org/en/heritage-armed-conflicts/1954-convention
• (n.d.). Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention. UNESCO. From: https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-protection-cultural-property-event-armed-conflict-regulations-execution-convention
• United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations. United Nations. From: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
• United Nations. (1998). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. United Nations. From: https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm
• Vicens, A.J. (2026, March 1). Hackers hit Iranian apps, websites after US-Israeli strikes. . Reuters. From: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/hackers-hit-iranian-apps-websites-after-us-israeli-strikes-2026-03-01/
• Webber, Tammy. (2026, March 15). After attacks on Iran’s oil facilities, toxic black rain endangers the public. Associated Press. From: https://apnews.com/article/iran-war-black-rain-pollution-d5f67db4a772775c83dfa3fd303cf25d
• World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. (2026, March 11). Situation report No.1: Humanitarian health needs and gaps. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean. From: https://www.emro.who.int/images/stories/eha/ME-Sitrep-1-11-March-26.pdf
• Ying Shan, Lee. (2026, March 16). Trump’s warning over Kharg Island raises the stakes for Iran’s oil exports. CNBC. From: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/16/trump-iran-kharg-island-strikes-oil-exports.html