Did the United States commit War Crimes in Iran? A Lawyer Weighs In
There have been reports of an unarmed ship being bombed and civilian objects becoming casualties of American strikes in Iran. The question is, did the United States commit war crimes in its military campaign against Iran?
Deputy District Atty. Spencer from the YouTube channel Legal Eagle analyzed the most contentious military actions by the United States that have taken place in Iran. According to Spencer, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) draws distinctions between ‘jus ad bellum’ and ‘jus in bello.’
‘Jus ad bellum’ refers to the law governing when a state may use military force. Spencer stated that this is governed by the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force, with the exception of self-defense. On the other hand, ‘jus in bello’ dictates how wars are conducted.
As Spencer sums it up, “If jus ad bellum is the why, jus in bello is the how.” He explains that it does not matter that a war is illegal because the expected conduct still applies.
“The first question is not whether the war itself was started legally. It’s whether the specific conduct violated the rules governing how wars are fought,” Spencer said, before examining two eye-catching cases.
Sinking of the IRIS Dena
The US Navy submarine Charlotte launched a torpedo and sank the IRIS Dena, an Iranian frigate near Sri Lanka. The ship participated in the International Fleet Review 2026, a multinational exercise conducted by India. After the ship sank, the Sri Lankan Navy rescued 32 people, and 87 lifeless bodies were recovered.
According to Spencer, the sinking of the Iranian frigate is not a violation of the law on armed conflict.
“Under the law of war at sea, enemy warships are generally lawful military targets, even if they are not actively firing at the moment of attack,” Spencer says. He adds that warships can be attacked without warning—he emphasized that the Dena’s designation as a warship made it a legal military target.
“There is a limited exception to this rule if a vessel makes a good-faith offer to surrender.” Spencer cites the conflicted reports, wherein some state that the Iranian warship was given ample warning to surrender by the United States, while others state that the frigate was not informed prior to the strike.
However, Spencer also says that the United States was obliged to “search for and collect the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked after a battle.” This rule falls under Article 18 of the Second Geneva Convention and applies to all other naval vessels.
If the Charlotte failed to take all possible steps to rescue the sailors, then it’s a possible violation of the Second Geneva Convention. So, is there a war crime in this case? For Spencer, it’s still unclear.
Attacks on civilian constructs
Spencer explained that IHL distinguishes between civilian objects, military objectives, and dual-use facilities. Civilian objects, such as homes, churches, hospitals, and schools, are protected from attack. Military objectives are legitimate targets. However, if combatants use civilian objects, then they can lose their protected status and be targeted.
Dual facilities are used for both civilian and military purposes. Therefore, commanders must weigh if the military advantage gained from destroying the dual-use facility justifies the expected civilian harm.
What about the girls’ school?
On February 28, a missile hit a girls’ school in Minab City, Iran. The attack killed 168 children. Although the United States has not formally claimed responsibility for the act, reports suggest that the country is responsible for the misfire.
To qualify the act as a war crime, a person must have the intention to violate the law—in this case, intend to attack the civilians. The attorney also cited reports that officers from the U.S. Central Command relied on outdated information, as the compound the school was in used to have watchtowers that served the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. complex.
Therefore, it’s too early to say that this attack is a war crime. There is not enough evidence collated for intent. “The truth is that the law of armed conflict does not eliminate tragedy in war. It just tries to limit it,” Spencer ends.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
