West Asia war LIVE: U.S. military carries out strikes on Iran as both sides threaten civilian infrastructure
The US military carried out strikes on Iranian targets as part of an escalating conflict in West Asia, with both sides reported to have threatened civilian infrastructure
Iran's Foreign Ministry stated that the country's defence doctrine would be "eye for an eye," signalling a retaliation-based response posture to the strikes
The exchanges follow weeks of rising tension centred on shipping security in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil transit route
The conflict has raised concerns over regional energy infrastructure and the safety of commercial shipping and civilian populations on both sides
The UN Charter Framework on the Use of Force: Article 2(4) and Article 51
The United Nations Charter establishes a general prohibition on the use or threat of force by one state against another under Article 2(4), subject to a narrow exception under Article 51, which preserves the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs" against a UN member, pending Security Council action. Article 51 has been interpreted, including by the International Court of Justice, to require that self-defensive force be both necessary and proportionate to the armed attack that triggered it.
Key Details
- UN Charter Article 2(4): prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state
- UN Charter Article 51: self-defence exception, applicable only where an "armed attack" has occurred, and only until the UN Security Council acts
- Customary international law requirements for lawful self-defence: necessity and proportionality (not codified in the Charter text but established through state practice and ICJ jurisprudence)
- Any use of force is expected to be reported to the UN Security Council under Article 51's reporting requirement
Strikes and counter-strikes between the US and Iran are conducted, and typically justified, within this Article 51 self-defence framework, with each side citing prior attacks (on shipping or forces) as the "armed attack" that triggers a proportionate response — a legal characterisation that remains contested in most such episodes.
International Humanitarian Law: Distinction and Proportionality in Targeting
Where hostilities are underway, international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) governs how force may lawfully be used, independent of whether the resort to force itself (jus ad bellum) was lawful. Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 codifies the principle of distinction — parties must at all times distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects, directing attacks only at the former (Article 48). Article 51(5)(b) separately codifies the principle of proportionality, prohibiting attacks expected to cause civilian harm "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."
Key Details
- Additional Protocol I (1977), Article 48: foundational rule of distinction between civilians/civilian objects and combatants/military objectives
- Article 52(2): defines a lawful "military objective" as one making an effective contribution to military action, whose neutralisation offers a definite military advantage
- Article 51(5)(b): codifies the proportionality principle limiting incidental civilian harm
- Deliberate reprisals against civilians or civilian objects are prohibited under IHL even as a response to an adversary's violations (reflected in the ILC's 2001 Articles on State Responsibility, Article 50, which excludes humanitarian-law reprisal prohibitions from permissible countermeasures)
Reported threats by both sides to target civilian infrastructure directly implicate the distinction and proportionality principles; under IHL, civilian infrastructure (power plants, ports, non-military energy facilities) cannot lawfully be targeted merely as retaliation, regardless of a stated "eye for an eye" doctrine.
India's Evacuation Precedent: Operation Sindhu (2025)
Escalation in West Asia directly affects the large Indian diaspora resident in the region. In June 2025, India conducted Operation Sindhu, evacuating over 4,400 Indian nationals from Iran and Israel during an earlier phase of the same regional conflict, using a combination of commercial charter flights and Indian Air Force C-17 aircraft, and coordinating overland movement through neighbouring countries when airspace was closed.
Key Details
- Operation Sindhu (June 2025): approximately 4,415 Indian nationals evacuated — around 3,597 from Iran and 818 from Israel — via 19 special flights, including IAF C-17 aircraft
- Evacuation routes included overland transfers through Armenia, Turkmenistan, Jordan, and Egypt when direct airspace access was unavailable
- Indian missions in Tehran, Yerevan, Ashgabat, Tel Aviv, Amman, and Cairo coordinated the operation
- Continues a series of MEA-led civilian evacuation operations from conflict zones, following precedents such as Operation Ganga (Ukraine, 2022) and Operation Kaveri (Sudan, 2023)
Renewed US-Iran strikes and threats to civilian infrastructure raise the prospect of further evacuation requirements for the Indian community in the region, building on the operational template established during Operation Sindhu.
- Legal basis invoked for use of force: UN Charter Article 51 (self-defence), subject to Article 2(4)'s general prohibition
- Key IHL provisions on civilian protection: Additional Protocol I (1977), Articles 48 (distinction), 51(5)(b) (proportionality), 52(2) (military objectives)
- Reprisals against civilians are prohibited even as retaliatory countermeasures (ILC Articles on State Responsibility, 2001, Article 50)
- India's Operation Sindhu (2025): approximately 4,415 Indian nationals evacuated from Iran and Israel via 19 flights, including 3 IAF C-17 sorties
- Strait of Hormuz, the maritime chokepoint at the centre of the wider dispute, carries roughly 20% of global oil consumption