Israel and the United States at War (2025-2026 Operations)

Leading legal experts' Q&A analyzes how the law of armed conflict applies to U.S., Israeli, and Iranian strikes - with a focus on targeting rules and civilian protections.

The law of armed conflict demands that we take the Minab school strike seriously to learn, to reform, and to prevent the next failure.

In the Iran war, when do critical infrastructure and economic assets qualify as lawful military objectives under the law of armed conflict.

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

Iran’s staying power is not proof that the regime is strong; it is proof that it read the American way of war playbook. This forces a hard look at U.S. military assumptions.

The Iran War and the public rupture between DoD and Anthropic point to a fundamental imbalance in current military AI.

Hegseth's "no quarter" statement indicates how some in the Pentagon perceive the Iran war. "No quarter" language in US history has appeared when war turns colonial or racial.

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.

Three key factors explain why the Iranian regime has held on and why it is increasingly likely to survive the war.

Top legal experts on the law of naval warfare break down the key issues in the Iran-U.S.-Israel conflict.