One month into the escalating Middle East conflict, Human Rights Watch has warned that the scale, speed, and geographic spread of the violence are placing severe strain on the international legal framework meant to protect civilians during war. The organization says that the conduct and rhetoric of the United States, Israel, and Iran reveal a growing willingness by all sides to ignore international humanitarian law, threatening the rules-based order designed to limit civilian suffering during armed conflict.
Human Rights Watch argues that senior officials from all three countries have made alarming public statements that openly dismiss the laws of war, threaten unlawful attacks, and show disregard for civilian lives and infrastructure. The group says this dangerous rhetoric, combined with the failure of world leaders to hold violators accountable in past conflicts, increases the risk of further war crimes and deepens the erosion of global legal norms.
Since the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28, 2026, and as Iran responded while Israel expanded attacks in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch says all parties have been implicated in serious violations of the laws of war, including possible war crimes. The organization highlights that officials have publicly threatened attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, justified abuses as retaliation, and treated international law as optional rather than binding.
Human Rights Watch specifically points to statements by US officials, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s remark that “no quarter” would be given to enemies in Iran, which under international law amounts to a war crime because it implies refusing surrender. It also cites repeated threats by President Donald Trump to destroy Iranian power plants and infrastructure, warning that such facilities are often civilian in nature or indispensable to civilian survival, making them protected under the laws of war and unlawful targets in most circumstances.
Iranian officials, according to Human Rights Watch, responded with similarly unlawful threats, including warnings that Israeli and US-linked energy infrastructure, power plants, and information systems across the region would be targeted. The organization also says Iranian authorities have wrongly characterized companies, banks, and commercial ships as military objectives, despite international law presuming such objects to be civilian unless proven otherwise. In addition, Iranian authorities have threatened harsh repression against domestic protesters, further raising concerns about both wartime conduct and internal human rights abuses.
Human Rights Watch also criticizes senior Israeli officials and military figures for statements suggesting unlawful attacks in Iran and Lebanon. These include threats against political representatives, warnings that could amount to forced displacement in southern Lebanon, and language indicating an intention to destroy civilian homes or target areas where civilians may still be present. The group stresses that attacks on civilian leaders, unless they are directly participating in hostilities, are prohibited under the laws of war.
The organization says this rhetoric has not remained rhetorical. It reports that the first month of conflict has already seen a series of grave alleged violations, including a US strike on a school in southern Iran that reportedly killed many civilians, including children; Israel’s use of white phosphorus over residential areas and attacks on financial institutions in Lebanon; Iranian strikes on hotels, residential buildings, airports, financial centers, and commercial ships; attacks by both Israel and Iran on oil and gas infrastructure; and Iran’s reported use of internationally banned cluster munitions against Israel. Human Rights Watch says these actions may amount to serious war crimes and have already caused severe civilian harm.
Beyond the immediate battlefield, the conflict is also generating wider humanitarian and economic consequences. Attacks and threats against shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against regional energy infrastructure have contributed to rising global energy prices, with likely knock-on effects for food, fertilizer, transport, and environmental stability. Human Rights Watch notes that prolonged disruption could deepen food insecurity far beyond the region, with the World Food Programme estimating that nearly 45 million more people could fall into acute food insecurity if the conflict continues and oil prices remain above $100 per barrel.
The full civilian toll remains unclear, in part because governments involved in the conflict are restricting access to information. Human Rights Watch says Iran has imposed a blanket internet shutdown and arrested hundreds of people for sharing footage or communicating with foreign media. It also points to pressure on the media in the United States, broadcast restrictions and journalist detentions in Israel, social media-related detentions in Gulf states, and Hezbollah’s ban on filming in Beirut’s southern suburbs. These actions, the organization says, are obstructing documentation of abuses and making accountability more difficult.
Human Rights Watch urges governments around the world, especially allies of the United States, Israel, and Iran, to publicly defend international humanitarian law, condemn violations, and ensure they are not complicit in abuses by continuing support without conditions. It emphasizes that under the Geneva Conventions, all states have a duty not only to respect the laws of war themselves but also to take proactive steps to ensure that other parties respect them and to act when there is a foreseeable risk of violations.
The organization places the current conflict within a broader context of impunity, linking it to ongoing atrocities in Gaza, Iran’s crimes against its own population, and inconsistent international responses to violations in places such as Sudan and Ukraine. Human Rights Watch argues that this pattern of selective enforcement has helped normalize disregard for civilian protections, making the current crisis even more dangerous. It concludes that the words and actions of leaders in wartime are especially consequential, and that governments worldwide must urgently intervene diplomatically to defend civilian protections and restore respect for the laws of war.
