More than 100 international law experts say the conduct of the war and the public threats surrounding it are testing core legal rules meant to protect civilians and restrain armed conflict.
An open letter signed by more than 100 legal scholars has accused the United States, Israel and Iran of actions and rhetoric that could breach international humanitarian law, even as the White House insists the offensive has made the region safer.
Legal warning over the conduct of the war
More than 100 experts on international law have signed an open letter expressing what they described as profound concern about the conduct of the war involving the United States, Israel and Iran. Their intervention pushes the conflict into a sharper legal spotlight at a time when the military confrontation is already reshaping regional politics and civilian life.
According to the BBC report, the signatories argue that the decision by the United States and Israel to attack Iran raises serious questions under the United Nations Charter, which generally prohibits the use of force except in self-defence or with United Nations Security Council approval. In their view, that legal threshold has not been convincingly met by the justification offered so far.
Rhetoric and battlefield rules under pressure
The experts also pointed to public statements by senior officials that they said could further erode established wartime protections. Among the examples cited were threats by President Donald Trump to obliterate Iranian power facilities and remarks by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth that no quarter should be given to enemies, language the scholars said clashes with rules that forbid denying protection to surrendering or wounded fighters.
Their broader concern is that such rhetoric does not stay in the realm of politics. When leaders appear to dismiss long-standing humanitarian norms, the risk is that those attitudes shape military behaviour in ways that deepen civilian suffering and weaken the legal restraints designed to limit war.
White House rejects criticism as conflict widens
The White House dismissed the criticism, saying the so-called experts were ignoring Iran's long record of sponsoring armed groups and targeting Americans. Officials maintained that Trump's strategy is intended to make the region safer by removing both immediate and long-term threats, a defence that underscores how far the administration remains from accepting external legal pressure over the campaign.
The exchange matters beyond this war because international law depends heavily on state practice and political respect for enforcement norms. When major powers and regional actors openly dispute the meaning of those rules during an active conflict, the consequences can extend well past one battlefield and shape how future wars are justified and fought.
