Civilian Sites in War: Why US-Iran Strikes Raise Legal Questions

US and Iranian strikes on infrastructure around the Gulf have revived a central question in the law of war: what counts as a civilian site, and when can a bridge, airport, port or power facility be treated as a military objective?

The question has become urgent because both Washington and Tehran say they are targeting military capacity, while reported strikes have also hit roads, bridges, power infrastructure, ports and other facilities used by civilians.

What international law says

International humanitarian law distinguishes between civilian objects and military objectives. Civilian objects are protected from direct attack unless they are being used in a way that makes an effective contribution to military action and their destruction offers a definite military advantage.

That exception is often called the "dual-use" problem. A bridge may carry school buses and food trucks, but it may also be used to move military vehicles. A port may handle civilian trade, but it may also support naval logistics.

Even when a site is considered dual-use, attackers must still follow the rules of distinction, proportionality and precaution. That means they must distinguish military targets from civilians, avoid excessive civilian harm in relation to the expected military advantage, and take feasible steps to reduce harm.

Why the US-Iran conflict is disputed

Al Jazeera reported that US strikes in Iran and Iranian strikes across the Gulf have hit civilian infrastructure, even as both sides frame their attacks as military operations.

The United States has said it is targeting military sites and logistics infrastructure linked to Iran's ability to control the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials say US strikes have hit civilian infrastructure, including transport links, water facilities and residential areas.

Iran, meanwhile, has said its attacks are aimed at US military assets in neighbouring countries. Gulf officials have reported damage to infrastructure, including power, water and oil-related facilities, in attacks attributed to Iran.

Sites reported hit in Iran

Al Jazeera's reporting lists a series of transport and infrastructure sites in southern Iran that officials and local media say were hit. These include bridges around Bandar Abbas and Bandar Khamir, railway facilities, airports, ports, piers, water facilities and communications towers.

Bandar Abbas is especially sensitive because it is both a civilian commercial hub and a major naval centre near the Strait of Hormuz. That makes it a classic dual-use environment: commercial shipping, military logistics and civilian life overlap in the same geography.

The legal question is not simply whether a bridge or port has some military relevance. It is whether the specific attack met the requirements of necessity, proportionality and precaution at the time it was carried out.

Sites reported hit by Iran

Iranian attacks have targeted countries where US forces or military assets are based, including Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Jordan, according to regional reporting. Iran has said it is striking US-linked military infrastructure.

But reported damage to power plants, desalination facilities, oil infrastructure and nearby civilian areas raises similar legal questions. A facility that supports a military base may also support civilian homes, hospitals and water supply.

When infrastructure has both civilian and military value, the attacker still has to consider foreseeable civilian harm. A strike on a water or power facility can affect people far beyond the immediate blast zone.

Why civilian infrastructure matters

Civilian infrastructure is not just concrete and steel. Bridges determine whether ambulances can move. Power stations keep hospitals running. Water facilities prevent disease. Ports and roads carry food, fuel and medicine.

That is why international law treats civilian infrastructure protection as a core principle, not a technical detail. Destroying systems that civilians rely on can produce harm long after the strike itself.

The debate becomes even sharper when public officials openly threaten civilian infrastructure. Al Jazeera cited comments by US President Donald Trump threatening power plants and bridges unless Iran negotiated. Such statements can become legally and politically significant because they speak to intent.

What investigators would examine

If an attack is later reviewed, investigators would look at what the attacker knew at the time, what military advantage was expected, what civilian harm was foreseeable and what precautions were taken.

They would also examine whether alternative means were available. Could the same military objective have been achieved with less harm? Was advance warning possible? Was the timing chosen to reduce civilian presence?

Those questions do not produce easy answers during an active conflict. But they are the questions that matter under international humanitarian law.

The wider risk

The US-Iran conflict around Hormuz has already pushed energy markets, Gulf security and civilian infrastructure into the same crisis. The more each side targets logistical networks, the harder it becomes to keep civilian systems out of the fight.

That does not remove the legal duty to protect civilians. If anything, it makes the duty more important. In a region where military bases, ports, oil sites and civilian cities sit close together, restraint and careful target review are the difference between a military campaign and a widening civilian disaster.