Enforcement remains selective, while legal interpretations are frequently shaped by geopolitical influence. Yet even this imperfect system imposes constraints. It provides a framework intended to limit escalation and shield civilian populations from the worst excesses of war. Under the UN Charter, force is permitted in only two circumstances: self‑defense following an armed attack, or explicit authorization by the Security Council. Article 51 affirms the inherent right of individual or collective self‑defense if an armed attack occurs: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Articles 39 and 42 empower the Council to authorize military action to restore international peace and security: “Article 39 – The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.” “Article 42 – Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.” Neither Israel nor the US was attacked by Iran prior to launching their strikes. Nor did they obtain UNSC authorization… Not only is the war itself illegal under international law, but so is its conduct. Under international law, self-defense must be proportionate (in response to an attack) and necessary (furthering objectives to prevent future attacks). Otherwise, a small border skirmish could become nuclear. Proportionality and necessity are part of customary international law, a legal source that comes from the consistent practice of states over a long period of time. It has been affirmed in international legal cases such as ‘Nicaragua v. United States of America,’ where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated there was a “specific rule whereby self-defense would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in customary international law.” On the first day of the war, the US and Israel assassinated Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and bombed a girls’ elementary school, killing at least 180, of whom 165 were little girls. In no way does this achieve any military objective. In fact, by assassinating Khamenei and killing innocent civilians, the aggressors made negotiation more difficult. Meanwhile, despite Iran launching thousands of missiles and drones in retaliation, officially, only 16 Israelis, 13 US soldiers, and 20 people across the Gulf have been killed. Iran’s main targets have been military bases and buildings hosting US soldiers – legitimate targets given their role in attacking the Islamic Republic. Iran has also struck embassies, not with the goal of assassinating diplomats, but to destroy spying operations. Most controversial has been the attack against a desalination plant in Bahrain, which provides water. As per Article 52(1) of the Additional Protocol of the Geneva Convention, “Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals.” Specifically, Article 54 states, “It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.” Iran argues it was responding with tit-for-tat to the destruction of a desalination plant on Qeshm Island, the only one providing water to the 150,000 residents, while Bahrain possesses multiple facilities capable of maintaining supply. Within the law of armed conflict, such actions are sometimes analyzed through the doctrine of belligerent reprisals – a narrowly defined concept referring to measures that would normally be unlawful but may become permissible as a last‑resort response to a serious prior violation.