Collection: Iran

How allowing Iran to charge for transit in the Strait of Hormuz could undermine U.S. strategy in the Pacific and beyond

Experts analyze the US-Israel Iran military conflicts - covering nuclear diplomacy; strategic, security, and regional implications; and domestic and international law.

Former U.S. Navy Commander, JAGC Mark Nevitt clarifies the 5 "blockades" in the U.S.-Iran conflict and the different legal issues and operational risks at stake.

U.S. policies of funding rebel groups to achieve shared strategic objectives while turning a blind eye to ideology and international law has proven to be myopic time and again

It is the violation of fundamental principles of international law that ultimately constitutes an existential threat to all members of the international community.

A 1983 Supreme Court ruling eviscerated the law allowing Congress to end war. The Iran strikes make that a five-alarm emergency.

The relationship between regime change and IHL is of inherent tension, incentivizing battlefields where the law is viewed as an obstacle rather than an essential constraint.

Former US State Department attorney writes that the United States' "Article 51" letter to the UN Security Council fails to identify legal basis for Iran attack.

Do data centers qualify as lawful military objectives? If so, under what circumstances are they subject to attack? And what precautions must be taken before targeting them?

Israel and the United States must end their ongoing war of aggression against Iran, and Israel must end its unnecessary military campaign in Lebanon.

Positions taken at the UN Security Council are a harbinger of whether the legal cornerstone of the international order that is designed to maintain world peace can hold.

Experts who advised a president on use of force answer a full range of basic questions on the conditions under which action against Iran would be lawful, and what options Congress…