The U.S.-Israel War in Iran Violates International Law and Abandons Civilian Protection
Source: Isaac Chotiner. "The Lawlessness of Trump’s War in Iran | The New Yorker." March 10, 2026. www.newyorker.com
The Gist
The author argues that Trump's war against Iran breaks international law in two ways: the U.S. had no legal right to start the war, and they're fighting it without caring about killing civilians. The administration deliberately removed safety rules meant to protect innocent people, leading to predictable mass civilian deaths.
Conclusion
The United States and Israel are conducting their war against Iran in violation of international law, both in initiating the conflict and in how they are conducting it, with a deliberate abandonment of civilian protection measures
Premises
- The U.S. and Israel lack legal justification for the war under international law, as there was no UN Security Council authorization and insufficient evidence of imminent threat for self-defense
- The Trump administration has deliberately dismantled internal Pentagon structures designed to protect civilians, including the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan
- The ferocity and targeting patterns of attacks suggest insufficient care is being taken to minimize civilian casualties, with over 1,000 civilian deaths including 175+ at a girls' school
- Attacks on civilian infrastructure like water desalination plants and oil facilities violate laws protecting objects indispensable to civilian survival
- Leadership explicitly rejects civilian protection rules, with Defense Secretary Hegseth calling rules of engagement 'stupid' and Trump celebrating violation of international norms
- The pattern of repeated civilian casualties represents predictable results of removing protective safeguards rather than isolated mistakes
Assumptions
- International law provides meaningful constraints on state behavior during warfare
- The dismantling of civilian protection mechanisms was intentional policy rather than bureaucratic oversight
- Military leaders and legal experts who previously took civilian protection seriously were acting in good faith
- The international community's relative silence represents a dangerous precedent for future conflicts