Over 100 Experts Condemn US, Israel, and Iran Over War Conduct

Key Takeaways

• Over 100 international law experts signed a letter condemning violations by US, Israel, and Iran.
• Experts claim US-Iran attacks breach UN Charter prohibitions on force and the prohibition of "no quarter."
• White House defends Trump's rhetoric as necessary for regional safety, dismissing expert concerns.
• Civilian death tolls rise significantly, with at least 1,606 killed in Iran and 168 in a school strike.

More than 100 specialists in international law have united to express "profound concern" regarding the escalating hostilities in the Middle East. These signatories have issued an open letter alleging serious breaches of global legal standards by the United States, Israel, and Iran. The group warns that the current conduct of the US-Iran conflict threatens to degrade the fundamental norms protecting civilians and armed forces alike.

The experts' letter specifically identifies the decision by the US and Israel to launch attacks on Iran as a clear violation of the United Nations Charter. This foundational document strictly prohibits the use of force unless exercised in self-defense or explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council. Furthermore, the correspondence highlights "alarming rhetoric" employed by senior officials, notably US President Donald Trump's threats to "obliterate" Iran's critical power plants.

The White House has firmly rejected these allegations. In a statement, the administration defended President Trump's actions, asserting that he is "making the entire region safer and more stable" by eliminating threats from Iran. The administration characterized the critics as "so-called experts" and accused Iranian authorities of maiming and killing Americans while acting as the primary state sponsor of terror for the past 47 years.

Alarming Rhetoric and "No Quarter" Among the specific grievances listed in the letter is a statement by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth declaring that "no quarter" be given to enemies. In legal and military terminology, denying quarter means refusing to spare the lives of combatants who surrender or are wounded. The signatories note that international law explicitly forbids such declarations, a prohibition that is also codified in the Department of Defense's own manual on the law of war.

The list of experts includes prominent figures such as Jonathan Tracy, a former US army judge advocate; Harold Hongju Koh, a former legal adviser at the US state department; and Oona A Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School and president-elect of the American Society of International Law. The group stated they are "gravely concerned" that the outlined conduct and threats are causing serious harm to civilians.

Civilian Casualties and School Strike The letter also draws attention to a specific attack on a primary school in the Iranian town of Minab on the first day of the war. Reports indicate this strike killed at least 168 people, including 110 children. While the US Department of Defense states it is investigating the incident, evidence suggests it may have resulted from a US strike, potentially due to outdated intelligence regarding the school's proximity to an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps base.

Experts warn that if the strike violates international humanitarian law, and if those responsible are found to have acted recklessly, it could constitute a war crime. Data from the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency indicates that at least 1,606 civilians, including 244 children, have been killed in Iran since the conflict began. Additionally, missile attacks launched from Iran and Lebanon have killed 19 civilians in Israel, according to emergency services there.

International Law Throws Aside

The current situation has prompted strong criticism from global humanitarian leaders as well. Tom Fletcher, the UN humanitarian chief, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the war has been "reckless" and that at some point, international law has been "thrown aside." While Fletcher emphasized that the rules are "very clear and very strong," he identified the lack of enforcement as the primary problem. The experts' letter concludes that public statements by senior officials indicate a disrespect for the rules of international humanitarian law, which are accepted by states to protect both civilians and military personnel.

Legal Precedents Stand or Fall

As the investigation into the Minab school strike continues, the outcome could set a significant precedent for how future US military actions are judged under the lens of international law. The presence of high-profile legal experts publicly challenging the administration's rhetoric suggests that the Iran war may face sustained scrutiny beyond the immediate battlefield. If evidence confirms that reckless actions led to civilian deaths, the potential legal ramifications could reshape the understanding of "no quarter" orders and the limits of defensive force. The tension between the administration's claim of regional stability and the experts' warnings of rule degradation will likely define the diplomatic landscape for the foreseeable future.