The Strait of Hormuz Conflict
Executive Summary
The 2026 Iran–US–Israel war represents a fundamental rupture in the legal and security architecture of the Persian Gulf. What began on 28 February as a coordinated US–Israeli military campaign against Iran—ostensibly to degrade nuclear and military capabilities—has evolved into a protracted struggle over the legal status and operational control of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most vital maritime chokepoints. The conflict has seen the assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the imposition of a US naval blockade, Iran's retaliatory strikes against US assets across the Gulf, and the breakdown of a ceasefire mediated by Pakistan in June 2026.
This analysis examines the conflict through the prism of international law, human rights, regional security, and democratic governance. It finds that both the US–Israeli campaign and Iran's responses have given rise to serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, including the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, the unlawful use of force, and the blockade of a vital international waterway. The conflict has also exposed deep accountability deficits, the politicisation of security narratives, and the erosion of diplomatic norms. While Iran's neighbours are investing in alternative energy corridors to bypass Hormuz, the immediate humanitarian and security costs are immense, and the risk of wider escalation remains acute.
Key Findings
- Unlawful Use of Force: The US–Israeli strikes against Iran, initiated without UN Security Council authorisation and outside the scope of lawful self-defence, constitute a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.[1]
- Civilian Harm: Credible reports indicate that at least 3,375 civilians have been killed and more than 33,000 injured since February, including 168 children killed in a strike on a school in Minab.[2]
- Blockade of Hormuz: Iran's threat and partial enforcement of a blockade against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz violate the right of transit passage under UNCLOS and customary international law.[3]
- Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) Breakdown: The Islamabad MoU of June 2026, which promised a permanent ceasefire and the reopening of Hormuz, collapsed within weeks due to resumed US strikes and Iranian retaliatory attacks.[4]
- Regional Spillover: The conflict has drawn in Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, with Iran targeting US military assets and Gulf infrastructure, and the Houthis resuming attacks in the Red Sea.[5]
- Accountability Deficit: Neither the US nor Israel has conducted transparent investigations into alleged war crimes, and the UN Security Council has been largely paralysed.[2]
Background & Chronology
The conflict's roots lie in the collapse of diplomatic efforts to constrain Iran's nuclear programme, coupled with the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign. On 28 February 2026, Israel and the United States launched coordinated airstrikes against Iranian targets, including leadership, air defence, and missile sites. The strikes killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose son Mojtaba was subsequently installed as his successor. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on US assets in the Gulf, Jordan, and Iraq.[6]
After a two-week ceasefire in early April, Pakistan hosted the first face-to-face US–Iran talks in 47 years, followed by negotiations in Switzerland and Doha. On 18 June 2026, the parties signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which provided for an immediate cessation of military operations, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a 60-day negotiation window for a final agreement. However, on 8 July, the US resumed strikes, citing Iranian attacks on ships in the strait, and Iran responded with a new wave of attacks.[4]
By 24 July, the war had entered a 13th consecutive night of US strikes, with Iran targeting US facilities in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan. Kuwait's air defences intercepted hostile drones, Jordan shot down seven missiles and six drones, and Bahrain reported intercepting Iranian projectiles. The UN and regional actors, including Qatar and Pakistan, have called for de-escalation, but the conflict shows no sign of abating.[7]
Scope, Methodology & Source Assessment
This analysis is based on a review of publicly available reports, official statements, UN documents, and media accounts covering the period from 28 February to 24 July 2026. Sources include live updates from DAWN.com, The Times of Israel, Al Jazeera, BBC News, CNN, and UN press releases. The author has also consulted legal analyses on the status of the Strait of Hormuz under UNCLOS and expert commentary from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Evidentiary limitations include the difficulty of independently verifying casualty figures and military claims in a conflict environment, the lack of access to Iranian territory for independent journalists, and the absence of official investigations into alleged violations. Where sources conflict—for example, over the number of civilian casualties or the specific targets of strikes—this analysis presents the range of claims and notes the uncertainty. The author has prioritised official UN reports, statements from human rights bodies, and corroborated media accounts, while treating claims by belligerent parties with appropriate scepticism.
Actor & Stakeholder Analysis
United States: The US, under President Donald Trump, has pursued a dual strategy of military strikes to degrade Iran's military capabilities and economic pressure through the seizure of Iranian assets. Its stated objective is to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. However, the inconsistency between its stated aims and its actions—including the unilateral resumption of strikes after the MoU—raises questions about its commitment to diplomacy and international law.
Iran: Under Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian, Iran has framed its actions as legitimate self-defence against US aggression. Its retaliation has included strikes on US military assets in Gulf states, the targeting of commercial shipping, and threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's conduct raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law, particularly regarding the principle of distinction and the prohibition of attacks on civilian objects.[8]
Israel: Israel participated in the initial strikes on Iran and has since maintained a posture of readiness, with Prime Minister Netanyahu set to meet President Trump in Washington. Israel has also been involved in separate escalations in the West Bank, where a shootout killed four Palestinians and two Israeli soldiers.
Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia): These states have been caught in the crossfire, with Iran targeting US military installations on their soil and their own air defences intercepting Iranian projectiles. While they have condemned Iranian attacks, their reliance on US security guarantees and their economic dependence on the Strait of Hormuz have placed them in a precarious position.[9]
Pakistan: Pakistan has played a central mediating role, hosting the Islamabad talks and facilitating the MoU. Its military chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, has also leveraged private oil ventures with the IRGC to mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia. However, Pakistan's influence is limited by its own economic vulnerabilities and its complex relationship with both the US and Iran.
Non-State Actors: Yemen's Houthi movement, an Iranian ally, has resumed attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea, prompting UN Secretary-General António Guterres to express "deep alarm". The Houthis have declared a naval blockade targeting Saudi Arabia, further complicating the maritime security landscape.[5]
Domain I: Local, Regional, and Global Peace
The conflict has fundamentally undermined regional peace. The US–Israeli strikes, Iran's retaliatory attacks, and the involvement of Gulf states have transformed the Persian Gulf into a theatre of direct military confrontation. The collapse of the Islamabad MoU—a promising diplomatic breakthrough—has eroded trust in mediation and demonstrated the fragility of ceasefire agreements.[10]
The conflict has also exacerbated underlying grievances, including sectarian tensions, the Israeli–Palestinian issue, and competition for regional influence. The Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and the escalation in the West Bank indicate that the war is spilling over into other theatres. Spillover risks include forced displacement, refugee flows, economic disruption, and the potential for proxy warfare to intensify. The UN has warned that further hostilities in Yemen could cause "serious economic, humanitarian and environmental consequences".[5]
Peacebuilding efforts have been hampered by the lack of a credible international framework for mediation, the absence of UN Security Council unity, and the unwillingness of the belligerents to commit to genuine dialogue. The immediate priority must be a return to the terms of the Islamabad MoU, but this will require both the US and Iran to demonstrate good faith and a willingness to compromise.
Domain II: Local, Regional, and International Security
The conflict poses a direct threat to regional and international security. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 30% of the world's crude oil passes, has become a military flashpoint. Iran's threat to close the strait and its attacks on commercial shipping have disrupted global energy supplies, pushing oil prices above $100 per barrel. The US has responded with strikes targeting Iranian naval and missile capabilities, but these have not restored confidence in the safety of the waterway.[11]
The militarisation of the strait has also raised legal questions about the right of transit passage under UNCLOS. Article 38 of UNCLOS guarantees the right of "transit passage" through international straits, which cannot be suspended even in times of crisis. Iran's actions, including the VHF broadcast warning "no ship is allowed to pass," constitute a prima facie violation of this right. The UN Security Council has adopted Resolution 2817 (2026), reaffirming that navigational rights must be respected.[3][12]
Security dynamics are further complicated by the involvement of multiple actors. The US has used its military presence in Gulf states to launch strikes, effectively making these states parties to the conflict and exposing them to Iranian retaliation. This has created a security dilemma, where Gulf states are forced to choose between hosting US forces and risking Iranian attacks, or seeking accommodation with Iran at the expense of their US alliance.[9]
The conflict also has implications for the global non-proliferation regime. The US bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities has been described by UN Secretary-General Guterres as a "perilous turn" that could cause the non-proliferation regime "as we know it to crumble". Iran's nuclear programme, which the US sought to degrade, may now accelerate in response to the strikes.
Domain III: Universal Human Rights
The human rights toll of the conflict has been catastrophic. According to UN experts, unlawful military operations between 28 February and early April 2026 killed at least 3,375 civilians, including nearly 500 women, and injured more than 33,000 others. The most egregious incident was the strike on the Minab primary school on 28 February, which killed 168 children and several teachers. The school was clearly identifiable as a civilian facility and was not being used for military purposes.[2]
Both sides have been accused of violating international humanitarian law. Iran has targeted US military installations in Gulf states, but some of its strikes have also caused civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. The US and Israel have been accused of failing to apply the principles of distinction and proportionality, and of carrying out attacks that constitute collective punishment. UN experts have called for prompt, independent, and transparent investigations into all allegations of civilian harm.[2]
The conflict has also had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups. Children, women, and displaced persons have borne the brunt of the violence. The UN has expressed alarm over reports that Iranian civilians may have been exposed to hazardous substances, with potentially serious consequences for public health, particularly for women and girls.[2] The blockade of Hormuz and the attacks on shipping have also stranded some 6,000 sailors, raising concerns about their welfare and the right to safe passage.[11]
Access to justice and remedies remains elusive. Neither the US nor Israel has made public any findings from internal investigations into alleged violations. The UN Security Council has been unable to agree on accountability measures, and the International Criminal Court has not yet opened a formal investigation. Victims and their families are entitled to truth, justice, and effective reparations, but these remain distant prospects.[2]
Domain IV: Democratic Values, Constitutional Governance, Accountability, and the Rule of Law
The conflict has exposed profound deficits in democratic governance, accountability, and the rule of law at both the domestic and international levels. In the United States, the war has been conducted without clear congressional authorisation, raising constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the War Powers Act. President Trump's threat to use frozen Iranian assets to pay for war damages has been criticised as a unilateral and extra-legal measure that sets a dangerous precedent.
Iran's domestic governance has also been affected. The assassination of Supreme Leader Khamenei and the installation of his son Mojtaba have raised questions about the legitimacy and stability of the regime. Iran's crackdown on dissent, including the sanctioning of judges by the EU for human rights violations, has further undermined the rule of law.[13]
At the international level, the UN Security Council has been largely paralysed, unable to pass a resolution that would effectively halt the hostilities. Russia and China vetoed a resolution on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and the Council's failure to uphold its primary responsibility for international peace and security has eroded its credibility and reinforced the perception that powerful states are above the law.[14] The EU's imposition of sanctions on Iranian judges, while a positive step, is insufficient to address the broader accountability deficit.
The conflict has also had a chilling effect on civic space and independent journalism. Journalists and human rights defenders have faced threats and restrictions in both Iran and the Gulf states, making it difficult to document human rights violations and hold perpetrators accountable. The suppression of dissent and the politicisation of security narratives have further undermined democratic values and the rule of law.
Integrated Legal, Democratic, Security, and Policy Assessment
The four domains examined above are deeply interconnected. The violation of human rights—particularly the targeting of civilians—has fuelled insecurity and undermined the prospects for peace. The breakdown of the rule of law, both domestically and internationally, has enabled the belligerents to act with impunity, perpetuating a cycle of violence. The security dilemma created by the militarisation of the Strait of Hormuz has not only threatened global energy supplies but has also exacerbated regional tensions and drawn in multiple actors.
The conflict illustrates the tension between state sovereignty and international responsibility. The US and Israel have invoked self-defence to justify their strikes, but the lack of an imminent threat and the absence of Security Council authorisation call into question the legality of their actions. Iran, for its part, has invoked its right to self-defence against US aggression, but its attacks on shipping and its threats to close the strait have violated international law. The result is a normative vacuum, where both sides claim legal justification for actions that are, in fact, unlawful.[15]
The conflict also highlights the tension between national security and civil liberty. In the US, the war has been used to justify the expansion of executive power and the erosion of congressional oversight. In Iran, the regime has used the war to suppress dissent and crack down on civil society. The rule of law, which should serve as a check on arbitrary power, has been sacrificed in the name of security.
Ultimately, the conflict demonstrates that security without accountability is a source of insecurity, and that peace without justice is fragile. A sustainable resolution will require not only a cessation of hostilities but also a commitment to accountability, human rights, and the rule of law.
Counterarguments & Alternative Perspectives
Advocates of the US–Israeli strikes argue that they were necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to protect freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. They contend that diplomacy had failed and that military force was the only option. However, this argument is undermined by the fact that the strikes were launched during active negotiations and that the subsequent MoU demonstrated the possibility of a diplomatic solution. The resumption of strikes after the MoU further suggests that the US was not genuinely committed to diplomacy.[10]
Iranian officials have defended their actions as legitimate self-defence against US aggression. They argue that Iran has the right to defend its sovereignty and to respond to attacks on its territory. While this argument has some merit under international law, it does not justify Iran's attacks on commercial shipping or its threats to close the strait, which are violations of the law of the sea.[15]
Some analysts have argued that the conflict is a necessary corrective to Iran's destabilising behaviour in the region. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that the conflict has itself destabilised the region, drawn in multiple actors, and caused immense human suffering. The long-term consequences of the war—including the potential for nuclear proliferation, the erosion of international law, and the entrenchment of authoritarianism—may outweigh any short-term gains.
Risk Assessment and Plausible Future Scenarios
The conflict is in a state of high volatility, with multiple escalation pathways. The most likely scenario is a continuation of the current pattern of strikes and retaliatory attacks, with both sides seeking to inflict maximum damage while avoiding a full-scale ground war. This scenario would result in continued civilian casualties, further disruption to global energy supplies, and the entrenchment of a protracted conflict.
A more dangerous scenario is a major escalation, involving a direct US–Iranian ground confrontation, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the involvement of Israel and other regional actors. Such an escalation could trigger a broader regional war, with catastrophic humanitarian and economic consequences. The risk of this scenario is heightened by the unpredictability of the actors involved, the absence of effective communication channels, and the lack of a credible international framework for de-escalation.
A third scenario is a return to diplomacy, driven by international pressure and the recognition that the conflict is unsustainable. This would require the US and Iran to recommit to the Islamabad MoU, to engage in good-faith negotiations, and to accept a compromise on the status of the Strait of Hormuz. While this scenario is the most desirable, it is also the least likely given the current trajectory of the conflict.
Regardless of the scenario, the conflict will have enduring implications for the region. Gulf states are already investing in alternative energy corridors to bypass Hormuz, signalling a long-term shift in the region's energy architecture. The erosion of international law and the weakening of the UN Security Council will also have lasting consequences for global governance.
Prioritised, Actionable Recommendations
To the United States and Iran:
- Immediate: Recommit to the Islamabad MoU and agree to an immediate, verifiable ceasefire, including the cessation of all strikes and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for commercial shipping.[10]
- Medium-term: Engage in good-faith negotiations to reach a final agreement on the status of the Strait of Hormuz, addressing Iran's security concerns while ensuring freedom of navigation in accordance with UNCLOS.[3]
- Long-term: Establish a regional maritime security framework, involving all Gulf states, to manage navigation and prevent future escalations.
To the United Nations Security Council:
- Immediate: Convene an emergency session to demand an immediate ceasefire and to establish a monitoring mechanism to verify compliance.
- Medium-term: Authorise an independent commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of war crimes and human rights violations, and to recommend accountability measures.[2]
- Long-term: Strengthen the legal framework for the protection of international waterways and the prevention of maritime blockades.
To Regional Actors (Gulf States, Pakistan, Qatar):
- Immediate: Use diplomatic channels to urge both the US and Iran to de-escalate and to return to the negotiating table.
- Medium-term: Support the development of alternative energy corridors to reduce dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, while ensuring that these projects are environmentally sustainable and respect the rights of affected communities.
- Long-term: Invest in regional conflict prevention mechanisms, including early warning systems, mediation capacities, and confidence-building measures.
To the International Community:
- Immediate: Provide humanitarian assistance to civilians affected by the conflict, including displaced persons, refugees, and stranded sailors.[11]
- Medium-term: Support independent journalism and human rights monitoring to ensure that violations are documented and that perpetrators are held accountable.
- Long-term: Strengthen the international legal framework for the protection of civilians in armed conflict, including the enforcement of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution.[2]
Final Conclusion and Overall Determination
The 2026 Iran–US–Israel war is a defining moment for the international legal order. It has exposed the fragility of the rules-based system, the limits of diplomacy, and the devastating human cost of armed conflict. The war has been marked by serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, including the unlawful use of force, the targeting of civilians, and the blockade of a vital international waterway. The breakdown of the Islamabad MoU and the continued escalation of hostilities underscore the urgent need for a return to diplomacy and the rule of law.[10]
This analysis concludes that the conflict is not only a failure of policy but also a failure of law and governance. The international community, and in particular the UN Security Council, has failed to uphold its primary responsibility for international peace and security. The belligerents have acted with impunity, prioritising military objectives over legal obligations and human rights. The result is a humanitarian catastrophe, a threat to global energy security, and a dangerous precedent for the use of force in international relations.
A sustainable resolution will require a recommitment to the principles of the UN Charter, a genuine willingness to engage in dialogue, and a determination to hold perpetrators accountable. The stakes could not be higher. The future of the Strait of Hormuz, the stability of the Gulf region, and the integrity of the international legal order all hang in the balance.
Selected Authoritative Sources
- United Nations. (2026, March 11). Security Council Resolution 2817 (2026) condemning Iran's attacks against neighbours. UN Press.
- United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2026, July 24). Iran: UN experts alarmed by renewed escalation of hostilities, call for accountability. OHCHR.
- International Maritime Organization. (2026, July 10). IMO Council resolution condemning Iran's unilateral authority over Strait of Hormuz. IMO.
- Text of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (2026, June 18). DAWN.
- United Nations. (2026, July 24). UN chief expresses alarm over Houthi strikes. UN News.
- Associated Press. (2026, February 28). US, Israel launch strikes on Iran; Supreme Leader Khamenei killed. AP News.
- Al Jazeera. (2026, July 24). Iran war live: Tehran hits Gulf states; Israel start raids in West Bank. Al Jazeera.
- Iranian Foreign Ministry. (2026, July 12). Iran says strikes on US facilities constitute legitimate self-defense. MFA Iran.
- Kuwait Times. (2026, July 11). IMO ruling strengthens Gulf's position on Hormuz. Kuwait Times.
- United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2026, July 23). Resumption of US-Iran hostilities betrays peace memorandum. OHCHR.
- United Nations. (2026, July 12). UN chief urges Iran and US to 'urgently resume negotiations' as Gulf strikes escalate. UN News.
- United Nations Security Council. (2026, July 14). Security Council Extends Secretary-General's Reporting Mandate on Houthi Attacks. UN Press.
- European Union. (2026, July 24). EU imposes sanctions on Iranian judges. EU Council.
- Agence France-Presse. (2026, July 12). Russia, China veto UN resolution on reopening Strait of Hormuz. New Age.
- EJIL: Talk!. (2026, July 24). The Legality of the Use of Interstate Force during the 2026 Israel/US-Iran Hostilities. EJIL Talk.
Editorial Note: This article is an independent legal and policy analysis prepared by Minhaz Samad Chowdhury, Legal Researcher & Rule of Law Analyst. It is based on publicly available sources and does not represent the views of any government, organisation, or institution. The analysis is intended to serve as a durable reference for policymakers, researchers, legal professionals, journalists, human rights defenders, civil-society organisations, and informed readers. The author welcomes comments and corrections at the email address provided on the author's institutional profile.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please validate CAPTCHA