Was the U.S. Guilty of War Crimes in Iran? A Legal Perspective

Understanding the Legal Framework of Warfare

The United States military campaign against Iran has raised significant legal and ethical questions, particularly regarding potential war crimes. To address these concerns, Deputy District Atty. Spencer from the YouTube channel Legal Eagle provided an in-depth analysis of the most contentious military actions by the U.S. in Iran. His insights focus on the distinction between two key aspects of International Humanitarian Law (IHL): jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

Jus ad bellum refers to the law governing when a state may use military force. According to the UN Charter, the use of force is generally prohibited, with exceptions for self-defense. On the other hand, jus in bello dictates how wars are conducted, focusing on the rules that must be followed during hostilities.

Spencer emphasized that the legality of the war itself is not the primary concern. Instead, the critical question is whether specific conduct during the conflict violated the rules governing how wars are fought.

Case Study: The Sinking of the IRIS Dena

One notable incident involved the sinking of the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena by the U.S. Navy submarine Charlotte near Sri Lanka. The ship was participating in the International Fleet Review 2026, a multinational exercise hosted by India. After the attack, the Sri Lankan Navy rescued 32 people, while 87 bodies were recovered.

According to Spencer, the sinking of the Iranian frigate does not constitute 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. Warships can be attacked without warning, as their designation as a military target makes them legitimate objectives.

However, there is a limited exception to this rule if a vessel makes a good-faith offer to surrender. Reports suggest conflicting accounts of whether the Iranian warship was given ample warning to surrender before the strike. Despite this, Spencer noted that the U.S. was obligated to “search for and collect the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked after a battle,” as outlined in Article 18 of the Second Geneva Convention.

If the Charlotte failed to take all possible steps to rescue the sailors, it could constitute a violation of the Second Geneva Convention. However, the situation remains unclear, and it is still uncertain whether a war crime was committed in this case.

Attacks on Civilian Constructs

Spencer also addressed the issue of attacks on civilian objects. 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, but if combatants use civilian objects, they can lose their protected status and become targets.

Dual-use facilities serve both civilian and military purposes. Commanders must weigh whether the military advantage gained from destroying such a facility justifies the expected civilian harm.

The Girls’ School Incident

One particularly tragic event involved a missile hitting a girls’ school in Minab City, Iran, on February 28. The attack killed 168 children. While the United States has not formally claimed responsibility, reports suggest that the country may be responsible for the misfire.

To qualify as a war crime, there must be evidence of intent to violate the law by attacking civilians. Spencer cited reports indicating that officers from the U.S. Central Command relied on outdated information. The compound where the school was located previously had watchtowers used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Given the lack of conclusive evidence regarding intent, it is too early to determine whether this attack constitutes a war crime. As Spencer concluded, “The truth is that the law of armed conflict does not eliminate tragedy in war. It just tries to limit it.”