The 2026 Iran war has been analysed in terms of its possible military and political consequences for the Islamic Republic of Iran, United States, Israel and other belligerents, and from international legal and geopolitical standpoints.
In the early months of the war, some analysts argued that Iran's ability to preserve the Islamic Republic, strike American bases, and disrupt the Strait of Hormuz showed the limits of American military power.
Other analysts cautioned against treating the Islamic Republic's survival as a strategic victory. The US and Israel inflicted severe losses on Iran's conventional capabilities despite Iran's ability to impose costs on American allies. Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued after the first ceasefire that it was "simply too soon to tell" whether the war had advanced American interests, citing both American military achievements and Iran's use of the Strait as leverage.
Since hostilities resumed in July, analysts have considered the war outcome unresolved. In August, Reuters' columnist Ron Bousso described the conflict as a stalemate in which neither side had shown a convincing strategy for breaking the deadlock.
Donald Trump's threats to destroy Iranian infrastructure have drawn warnings from international law experts that such actions could constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute, and be actionable under universal jurisdiction.
Objectives Some analysts noted the lack of a clear objective when starting the conflict.
Legality Many experts argue that the war is illegal under US law because launching a war requires congressional authorization. The war is also considered to be in violation of the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force, because the attacks fail to meet the criteria for self-defense and lack authorization from the United Nations Security Council. In response, the Trump administration claimed that previous presidents have also launched unauthorized military actions, and dismissed international law. In international criminal law, experts have identified the attacks as a crime of aggression, specifically as a war of aggression. The US attack also violates the Algiers Accords (1981) in which the US agreed not to intervene politically or militarily in Iran's internal affairs. Numerous critics and analysts identified the US-Israeli attack with a more open embrace of expansionism and imperialism by the Trump administration, and a departure from the norms of the liberal international order. Algiers Accords
According to the Point I of the General Declaration of the Algiers Accords between Iran and the United States, the United States pledged that it would no longer intervene in Iranian internal affairs. Iran has sued the US in the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT) in The Hague over the 2026 war, invoking the Algiers Accords.
United States law Many legal and military experts said that US actions in Iran are a type that require congressional authorization. They also noted the frequent use of the word "war" in Trump administration communication about the strikes, supporting the claim that the Trump administration had bypassed congressional war powers. Rubio said that the Trump administration had followed the War Powers Resolution, but questioned whether it was legally binding. Multiple American presidents and administrations have launched wars or military operations without congressional approval. Legal experts have argued that Trump's actions in Iran can be distinguished from prior non-authorized uses of force because the "speculative pre-emptive" justification for this war is comparatively weak when measured against past domestic and international legal rationales.
US State Department Legal Adviser Reed D. Rubinstein argued that the US strikes on Iran were justified, as they were launched "in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United States' own inherent right of self-defense," asserting that the military campaign was not a new war but rather a continuation of the ongoing conflict deriving from "Iran's malign aggression over decades" since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This included the Iranian attacks on Israel in April and October 2024, Iranian proxy warfare against the US and Israel, and Iran's nuclear program. Qatar Tribune expressed that the justifications for war against Iran by American officials was reminiscent of 2003 where like the argument of supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) construction by Iraq, war proponents argued that Iran was also pursuing WMDs or similar weapons and that the United States needed to intervene militarily.
On 13 March, the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated "... no quarter, no mercy for our enemies." Aside from being "especially prohibited" in international law to "declare that no quarter will be given," it is also prohibited in the US Department of Defense's own law of war manual. Hegseth's statement likely violates US War Crimes statute 18 U.S.C. § 2441.
On 5 April, Trump repeatedly threatened to bomb all of Iran's bridges and power plants if it did not agree to a deal to end the war, setting a deadline of 8:00 p.m. EDT on 7 April. Trump wrote in a Truth Social post that "a whole civilization will die" if Iran refused to comply. Lieutenant Colonel Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School, told PBS News that targeting electricity systems could affect access to clean water, many civilian facilities including hospitals, and terrify the population. VanLandingham said Trump's rhetoric could constitute a violation of US law, which prohibits "measures of intimidation against a civilian population", including efforts primarily intended to "sow terror amongst that civilian population".
International law
Legality of US-Israeli attacks The joint US–Israeli attacks on Iran are widely considered illegal under international law, as they violate the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force because they fail to meet the criteria for self-defense and were not authorized by the United Nations Security Council. There is no recognized legal basis for preventive war or forcible regime change. The attacks have been, therefore, considered a war of aggression.
Ben Saul, UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, stated that Iran had not enriched uranium to the point of building a nuclear device, that experts agreed Iran did not possess a nuclear weapon, and that the case was nowhere close to being self-defense against an imminent attack. Don Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, stated that the Security Council did not pass a resolution to attack Iran and had no legal basis for justifying use of force. The Law Society Journal noted that striking Iran during active negotiations was against the principles of good faith outlined in Article 2(2) of the UN Charter.
US President Trump had threatened to destroy all the bridges and power plants in Iran and said the country will be brought "back to the Stone Ages, where they belong," if it did not agree to a deal to end the war or reopen the Strait of Hormuz. According to legal scholar Tom Dannenbaum at Stanford Law School, Robert Goldman, a war crimes expert at the American University Washington College of Law, and Sarah Yager, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, targeting Iranian infrastructure, including power plants, would violate international law if it causes harm to civilians that is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Although immediate prosecution of Trump administration officials for alleged war crimes is unlikely (similar to Benjamin Netanyahu over the Gaza war), such prosecutions in principle can be brought by any country exercising universal jurisdiction at any time in the future. Luis Moreno Ocampo, the founding chief prosecutor of the ICC, argued that threats by Donald Trump to destroy Iranian infrastructure, alongside mutual attacks on energy infrastructure by Iran and Israel, do not constitute legitimate military targets under international humanitarian law and are war crimes under the Rome Statute. Ocampo likened these actions to the Russian attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure that led to ICC indictments. Stephen J. Rapp, former US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, said that such conduct risks making the US a rogue state. He and two other international law experts interviewed by NBC News said that Trump's threats alone could potentially constitute a war crime.
More than 100 international law experts signed an open letter in Just Security expressing "profound concern" over "serious violations of international law", namely: violation of the UN Charter by attacking Iran violations of international humanitarian law by targeting political leaders with no military role, oil and gas infrastructure (including attack on South Pars), and water desalination plants (e.g. in Iran and Bahrain) rhetoric and threats from officials, including the threat of denial of quarter by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, dismissal of rules of engagement and international law by Trump and Hegseth, and threats on energy infrastructure by Trump administration. the US Defense Department's systematic weakening of the protections meant to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law, including removing senior military lawyers and replacing military judge advocates general, undermining legal oversight of combat operations, as well as abolishing mechanisms designed to limit harm to civilians.
Legality of Iranian response According to The Guardian, under international law, Iran has the right to attack US and Israeli military targets following their attacks on Iran; however, Iranian attacks against civilians and against countries not party to the conflict are illegal. The blocking of the strait of Hormuz by Iran was described by Majid Rafizadeh as a violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Neither Iran nor the United States is a party to the treaty. Iran signed but did not ratify the treaty, and asserts its right to regulate the passage of foreign ships through its territorial waters. The United States treats the UNCLOS as "reflective of customary international law" despite not being a signatory. Bertina Kudrin concluded that "International maritime law, despite its many rules, is not equipped for today’s globalized world and chokepoints," due to the tensions between existing regimes of maritime law and complex developments in maritime economics since their implementation.
The US naval blockade of Iran was described as legitimate under international law of naval warfare by Australian legal expert Donald Rothwell, though the UN specialized agency International Maritime Organization insisted that there is "no legal basis in international law" for such action. Amnesty International declared Iran's recruiting of child soldiers a war crime.
Effects on Iran Iranian military strategy and effectiveness
The quicker Iranian response relative to that of the Twelve-Day War suggests a change in Iran's command structure. H. A. Hellyer, a Middle East expert, notes that Iran has moved beyond its initial goal of mere survival. The regime has proven its resilience and has fundamentally altered the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz.
According to senior adviser to the UAE president Dr. Anwar Gargash, Iran's strategy intended to undermine the willingness of the Gulf states to support the United States. Iran's targeting of Gulf states may also have been intended to increase energy prices globally, further putting global pressure on the US.