Israel’s War with Iran Tests International Law Amid Civilian Targeting Concerns
Legal Experts Warn of Potential War Crimes as Israel Targets Iranian Infrastructure; Debate Grows Over Legitimacy and Scope of Self-Defense.
Watan-The war with Iran has proven dramatically different from Israel’s recent military confrontations—not just due to the long-range missile attacks and significant damage on Israel’s home front, but because for the first time in decades, Israel is fighting a sovereign state, with defined borders, a formal army, and clear separation between civilian and military infrastructure.
A legal-security source remarked:“Unlike Gaza or Lebanon, where legal complexity arises from civilian-military entanglement, targeting Iranian military bases poses fewer legal dilemmas since civilians aren’t present there.”
However, international law experts caution against such black-and-white interpretations. The controversy peaked when Israel bombed Iran’s state broadcasting headquarters in Tehran last week.“A television station, even if used for propaganda, is not a legitimate military target,” said Prof. Eliav Lieblich of Tel Aviv University.
He noted that Israel also has media outlets that broadcast inflammatory rhetoric. Even if military use is alleged, the stated reason—propaganda broadcasting—raises legal doubts, Lieblich argued.
Legality and Proportionality in War
Dr. Tamar Megiddo, international law professor at the Hebrew University, emphasized that context and proportionality are key. Even if a media outlet has a military function, civilian harm must not outweigh the military advantage, and precautionary measures must be taken.
This principle, she said, applies equally to all parties, regardless of prior violations by the enemy.“Even if a hospital is misused for military purposes, attacking it still requires adherence to strict humanitarian standards,” Megiddo explained.
The Israeli army claims to issue warnings to civilians before strikes on dual-use sites, including in Gaza and Lebanon. However, legal questions remain, particularly around target legitimacy.
Israel has targeted senior Iranian officials, including scientists involved in the nuclear program. But international law restricts legitimate targets to combatants or those directly participating in hostilities.“Merely developing weapons does not make one a lawful target,” Prof. Lieblich said.
He acknowledged Israel likely has internal legal justifications, but warned these are not widely accepted and may endanger Israeli academic and military institutions.
Civilian Infrastructure and Gray Zones
Neither Israel nor Iran is a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), making ICC intervention unlikely. However, universal jurisdiction could be applied by other countries for war crimes committed during the conflict.
Following an Israeli strike on Iranian energy infrastructure in southern Fars province, experts questioned the legality of attacking gas fields without clear evidence of military use.
“Gas fields are civilian by default,” Megiddo stressed, “and require justification and proportionality if targeted.”
There have also been unconfirmed reports of hospital strikes in Iran, including the ballistic missile hit on Soroka Medical Center in Israel. Legal experts emphasize that reprisals against civilian targets are absolutely prohibited, regardless of enemy violations.
“War crimes are not reciprocal,” Megiddo reminded. “Every party must uphold humanitarian law even if the other side breaks it.”
“Civilians Will Pay” — A Dangerous Message
Tensions escalated after Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz said in response to Iranian rocket attacks:“The residents of Tehran will pay the price—soon.”
Though he later clarified he did not mean physical harm, but rather displacement from areas near military targets, Prof. Lieblich warned that such statements mirror Israel’s controversial conduct during the Gaza war and could fuel legal action at global forums.
Dr. Megiddo was more blunt:“There’s no justification for targeting civilians in retaliation. It’s a war crime—and any order to do so is blatantly illegal.”
Strategic and Legal Stakes
The Israeli government’s official stance, according to Deputy Legal Adviser Dr. Gil-Ad Noam, frames the war as part of a long-running armed conflict, involving Iran’s proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. He argues that Iran’s direct attacks in 2024 gave Israel the right to defend itself.
But Prof. Lieblich counters:“Even if you argue an ongoing war since October 7, any expansion must pass the proportionality test. Whether Iran controls its proxies enough to justify these strikes remains highly contested.”
He concluded:“Even if Israel believes its war is justified, the legal consensus is far from settled. This debate will last for years.”
Bottom line:Israel’s war with Iran presents a clearer battlefield but murkier legal terrain. As strikes extend to infrastructure, academics, and urban centers, international law faces its hardest test yet in the Middle East’s evolving warfare.
