Global Legal Bodies Condemn U.S.-Israel Strikes on Iran, Warn of Regional War and Potential War Crimes

LONDON, UK – In a stark and urgent intervention, the world's leading legal organizations have condemned the escalating armed conflict in the Levant and Gulf region, declaring that the recent wave of military strikes risks regional conflagration and constitutes serious violations of international law.

The International Bar Association (IBA) and its Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) issued a statement on Wednesday, calling for an immediate end to all hostilities and demanding strict adherence to the UN Charter by all parties involved.

The condemnation comes after a joint military offensive by Israel and the United States against Iran on 28 February 2026, which triggered retaliatory missile and drone attacks from Tehran. The conflict has since widened, drawing in several Gulf states including Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, and raising fears of an uncontrollable regional war.

'Forcible Regime Change' a Cornerstone Violation

The IBA and IBAHRI are unequivocal in their legal assessment: the initial strikes by the U.S. and Israel were carried out without UN Security Council authorization and do not meet the legal threshold for self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

While acknowledging the Iranian government's "repressive regime" and its "well-documented human rights abuses," the organizations stress that this context does not legitimize the use of force. "The prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state – commonly referred to as forcible regime change – set out in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is a cornerstone of the international legal order," the statement reads. "The legality of the use of force cannot depend on the perceived character or legitimacy of the government targeted."

The statement rigorously dismantles the justifications of self-defence put forward by Washington and Jerusalem, citing Iran's alleged nuclear program, and proxy hostilities. International law, the lawyers argue, permits self-defence only in response to an "armed attack" or, in very narrow circumstances, an "imminent" threat—a standard derived from the 19th-century Caroline incident, requiring a threat that is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means." Military action to neutralize speculative or longer-term threats, they assert, has "no widely accepted basis in international law."

'Strike on Girls' School' Raises War Crime Concerns

The human cost of the conflict is already coming into sharp focus. The IBA and IBAHRI point to reports from the Iranian Red Crescent Society indicating more than 1,300 people have been killed in Iran.

In a particularly harrowing detail, the statement highlights a strike on a girls' elementary school in Minab, which reportedly killed more than 165 people, many of them children. Retaliatory attacks have also resulted in multiple civilian deaths and injuries across the region.

The legal bodies warn that such attacks may constitute war crimes. "Attacks that fail to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, or that cause civilian harm that is disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage, are prohibited under international humanitarian law," the statement notes, calling for "prompt, independent and impartial investigation[s]" and accountability for those responsible.

'Digital Darkness' in Iran a New Tool of Repression

Amidst the kinetic warfare, the IBA and IBAHRI are raising the alarm over a "near-total communications blackout" imposed by Iranian authorities within hours of the first strikes. They describe this shutdown as a violation of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects freedom of expression and access to information.

Beyond stifling dissent, the blackout has potentially deadly consequences. "As evacuation notices or strike warnings are often issued through digital platforms, civilians may have no reliable means of knowing whether they are in the path of an imminent strike or whether their loved ones are safe," the statement warns. The organizations are calling on Tehran not to use the conflict as a "pretext to intensify repression under the guise of national security."

A Call for Law, Not Retaliation

The IBA and IBAHRI conclude with a stark warning that sustainable peace cannot be achieved through "cycles of retaliation." Their demands are clear:

• An immediate cessation of unlawful uses of force.

• Strict compliance with the UN Charter and international humanitarian law.

• Independent investigations into alleged violations.

• The urgent resumption of diplomatic negotiations.

"Sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved through cycles of retaliation," the statement concludes. "They require adherence to international law, the protection of civilians, accountability for violations and genuine good faith diplomacy."

The statement is signed by the leadership of the IBA and IBAHRI, including President Claudio Visco, Executive Director Dr. Mark Ellis, and Co-Chairs Mark Stephens CBE and Hina Jilani.