Iran Attack on US Base in Jordan: Was It Legal Under International Law?
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- Jul 18
- 19 min read
Updated: Aug 2
Introduction
Iran’s attack on a US base in Jordan killed two American service members on 17 July 2026, according to US Central Command, which also reported one service member missing and four others medically evacuated to Jordanian hospitals and later discharged (CENTCOM, 2026). Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed missile and drone strikes on US military facilities at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in al-Azraq, Jordan, and separately claimed the destruction of American aircraft there (The Jerusalem Post, 2026). The United States has not publicly identified the installation where the deaths occurred, and the Iranian battle-damage claims remain unverified. This analysis rests on information available as of 18 July 2026.
The short answer is layered. Iran’s use of force on Jordanian territory without Jordan’s consent is very difficult to reconcile with the United Nations Charter, whatever the state of hostilities between Iran and the United States (United Nations, 1945, art. 2(4)). Whether the strike also violated the Charter as against the United States turns on Iran’s claim to self-defense, which faces serious problems of necessity, proportionality, and purpose. The separate question of targeting law points the other way: an air base used by armed forces engaged in hostilities is ordinarily a military objective, and the deaths of service members at such a base do not, by themselves, show any violation of international humanitarian law, let alone a war crime.
Those two frameworks must not be merged. The lawfulness of resorting to force (jus ad bellum) and the lawfulness of how an attack is conducted (international humanitarian law) are assessed independently, and compliance with one says nothing about compliance with the other. The sections that follow set out the verified facts, then apply the Charter rules on force and self-defense, the law protecting Jordan’s sovereignty, the rules on military objectives and targeting, the elements of war crimes, and the law of state responsibility.
1. What Happened at the US Base in Jordan?
The strike came in the fifth month of hostilities between Iran and the United States. The United States and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February 2026, and Iran responded with missile and drone strikes on Israel and on Gulf states hosting US forces (The Standard, 2026). A ceasefire reached in June faltered after negotiations broke down (The Hill, 2026). By 17 July, the United States had completed a seventh consecutive night of strikes on Iranian territory, which Central Command said targeted surveillance sites, military logistics infrastructure, underground weapons storage, and maritime capabilities (CBS News, 2026).
Iran’s response reached across the region. On 17 July, the Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed strikes on US military facilities in Syria, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, and Jordan; the US military initially denied these claims (CBS News, 2026). In a statement on the Kuwait attacks, the IRGC warned that countries hosting US forces should expect “corresponding responses” if their territory is used for attacks on Iran (The Jerusalem Post, 2026).
Jordan sits squarely inside that warning. Its armed forces reported intercepting ten Iranian missiles that entered Jordanian airspace early on 18 July (Petra, 2026c), after earlier interceptions during the week, including four missiles on 14 July (Petra, 2026a) and three ballistic missiles early on 15 July (Petra, 2026b). Iranian attacks on at least two military bases in Jordan earlier in the week reportedly injured several US service members, although neither the United States nor Jordan reported fatalities at that stage (The Hill, 2026).
The fatal strike must be described within the limits of the confirmed record. Central Command stated on 18 July that “on July 17, two U.S. service members in Jordan were killed in action as U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and partner forces defended against Iranian ballistic missile and drone attacks,” that one service member was missing, that four others were medically evacuated to Jordanian hospitals and later discharged, and that personnel evaluated for minor injuries had returned to duty (CENTCOM, 2026). The command did not name the installation. Axios reported that at least two Iranian ballistic missiles struck Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, which hosts US troops and aircraft (Axios, 2026); since Muwaffaq Salti is located at Azraq, Iranian references to “Muwaffaq Salti” and “al-Azraq” may describe the same installation.
What has not been established independently: the official identity of the strike location; the points of impact; whether the dead were killed by a direct hit or while operating defensive systems; whether civilians or civilian objects were harmed; and whether the base had been used to conduct or support US strikes on Iran. The IRGC’s claim that it destroyed at least two US fighter aircraft comes from Iranian state media and has no independent confirmation (The Jerusalem Post, 2026). Each of these gaps constrains the legal conclusions available below.
2. The International Law Governing the Attack
2.1 The Prohibition on the Use of Force
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (United Nations, 1945, art. 2(4)). The prohibition also exists in customary international law and binds Iran and the United States alike (ICJ, 1986, paras. 187–190). The General Assembly’s Definition of Aggression lists both the bombardment of the territory of another state and attacks on the land, sea, or air forces of another state as acts of aggression (UN General Assembly, 1974, art. 3(b) and (d)).
The Iranian operation, therefore, engages Article 2(4) twice over. Missiles fired into Jordanian territory are a use of force against Jordan, regardless of whom they were aimed at. The same missiles, directed at US forces, are a use of force against the United States. An attack on foreign forces stationed abroad does not become legally weightless for the territorial state; it strikes two protected interests at once, and each state may invoke the violation in its own right.
2.2 International Humanitarian Law
International humanitarian law governs the conduct of the attack, whatever the answer under the Charter. An international armed conflict exists whenever states resort to armed force against each other, with no requirement of a declaration of war or any casualty threshold (Geneva Conventions, 1949, common art. 2; ICTY, 1995, para. 70). Sustained reciprocal strikes since February 2026 leave no doubt that Iran and the United States are parties to such a conflict.
Neither Iran nor the United States has ratified Additional Protocol I, but the rules relevant here — distinction, the definition of military objectives, proportionality in attack, and precautions — bind both states as customary law (ICRC, 2005, Rules 1, 7, 8, 14 and 15; Additional Protocol I, 1977, arts. 48, 51, 52 and 57). They apply equally to both sides: an attacker’s position under the Charter neither relaxes nor tightens its targeting obligations (Additional Protocol I, 1977, preamble).
2.3 Jordan’s Sovereignty and Legal Position
Jordan hosts US forces by consent and has publicly described itself as not engaged in the Iran–US hostilities. That political position does not determine whether particular exchanges of armed force created a separate international armed conflict between Iran and Jordan. In a joint statement with the United States and five Gulf states, it condemned Iran’s regional strikes, described the targeting of “countries not engaged in hostilities” as reckless, and reaffirmed a right of self-defense (US Department of State, 2026). Jordanian authorities have said the kingdom will not allow its airspace or territory to become an arena for the conflict (Ynetnews, 2026). Whether Iran violated Jordan’s sovereignty and whether Jordan’s own conduct changed its legal status are treated separately in section 4.
3. Did Iran Have a Right of Self-Defense?
3.1 Was There an Armed Attack?
Article 51 preserves an inherent right of self-defense “if an armed attack occurs” (United Nations, 1945, art. 51). Not every use of force qualifies; the International Court of Justice distinguishes the gravest forms of force from lesser incidents (ICJ, 1986, para. 191). Seven consecutive nights of US strikes on Iranian territory would comfortably satisfy that gravity threshold if the strikes were themselves unlawful. Whether they were is contested and lies beyond this article’s scope. Iran told the Security Council at the outset that it regarded the US–Israeli campaign as aggression satisfying none of the criteria of lawful self-defense, and that it would exercise its own right under Article 51 (United Nations, 2026). For the purpose of testing Iran’s position, the predicate of an armed attack attributable to the United States is at least arguable.
The harder question is what Iran was doing with its response. Self-defense must aim to halt or repel an attack. Armed reprisals — force used after the fact to punish or retaliate — are unlawful (ICJ, 1996, para. 46). The IRGC’s own framing points toward retaliation: it justified its strikes with the injunction to attack “in the same manner” as attacked, and warned host states of “corresponding responses” (The Jerusalem Post, 2026). Language of reciprocity, punishment, and deterrence, rather than of repelling a specific ongoing operation, weakens the defensive characterization considerably.
3.2 Necessity
Necessity requires more than a prior attack. In Oil Platforms, the Court rejected the US claim of self-defense in part because Washington had not shown that the platforms it destroyed were contributing to the attacks it invoked, or that striking them was necessary to respond (ICJ, 2003, paras. 73–77). The same discipline applies to Iran. Tehran would need to show that the base it struck in Jordan was materially connected to continuing or imminent US operations against it, and that neutralizing that facility, rather than some lesser or different measure, was required to halt them. Nothing in the public record establishes that connection; whether the installation was used to conduct or support strikes on Iran is one of the unverified facts identified above. On the available evidence, necessity is not made out.
3.3 Proportionality
Proportionality under the law of self-defense measures the overall scale and effects of the response against what is needed to repel the attack (ICJ, 1986, para. 176; ICJ, 1996, para. 41). It is not the same test as proportionality in attack under humanitarian law, which compares expected civilian harm with anticipated military advantage in a given strike; section 6.2 addresses that rule. Iran’s response has not been confined to the states striking it. The same week brought Iranian attacks on Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait, and earlier strikes hit tankers in the Strait of Hormuz (Jordan Times, 2026b; The Hill, 2026). A campaign of that breadth, directed in large part at states not using force against Iran, is hard to fit within defensive necessity, and it colors the Jordan strike as one element of a wider effort at coercion rather than a tailored defensive measure.
3.4 Security Council Notification
A state acting in self-defense must report its measures immediately to the Security Council (United Nations, 1945, art. 51), and the Court has treated reporting practice as evidence of whether a state believed itself to be acting defensively (ICJ, 1986, para. 200). Iran submitted Security Council communications concerning the wider conflict on 28 February and 7 July 2026 (Iran, 2026a; Iran, 2026b). The 7 July communication predated the fatal strike in Jordan on 17 July. No notification specifically reporting that the operation had surfaced by 18 July 2026, and communications concerning the wider conflict are not equivalent to notification of particular defensive measures.
The Council itself has not accepted Iran’s framing: Resolution 2817 condemned Iran’s attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan, and reaffirmed those states’ inherent right of self-defense (UN Security Council, 2026).
4. Did the Attack Violate Jordan’s Sovereignty?
Jordan’s position must be assessed on its own terms, not as an annex to the Iran–US confrontation. Territorial sovereignty protects a state against any use of force on its territory without its consent, and consent to one thing is not consent to another. In Armed Activities, the Court held that consent to the presence of foreign forces is limited by its terms and cannot be stretched beyond them (ICJ, 2005, paras. 42–53). Jordan consented to the stationing of US forces. There is no public evidence that it consented to US strikes on Iran being launched from its territory, and no confirmation that any were. Iran, for its part, sought no Jordanian consent for its own operation.
The absence of Jordanian consent strongly supports the conclusion that Jordan’s sovereignty was violated, although it does not end the analysis. Even on the most generous reading of Iran’s claim against the United States, self-defense carries no general license to conduct hostilities on the territory of a third state, and the effect of even lawful self-defense on obligations owed to a non-consenting third state remains unsettled; Article 21 of the Articles on State Responsibility operates in relations with the attacking state (ILC, 2001, commentary to art. 21).
Iran has gestured at a justification, telling the Council it would strike only US bases and assets that “operate beyond the control of the host States” (United Nations, 2026). That assertion resembles the contested unable-or-unwilling doctrine developed for non-state actors, and it rests on a factual premise, loss of Jordanian control, that Iran has not supported with evidence. The IRGC’s appeal to Jordanians to force the dismantling of American bases (The Standard, 2026) presupposes the opposite: that the bases were present with the government’s blessing.
Hosting US forces did not convert Jordan into a co-belligerent. State practice treats the grant of basing rights, even to a state engaged in hostilities, as insufficient by itself to make the host a party to the conflict; something closer to direct participation in the campaign is required.
Jordan’s air-defense operations require more care. Destroying Iranian missiles and drones is a forcible measure directed at Iranian military assets, but one taken within Jordan’s own airspace to protect its territory and population, and readily justified as self-defense. Under the low threshold of common Article 2, the exchange of Iranian strikes on Jordan and Jordanian armed responses may itself amount to an international armed conflict between Iran and Jordan, whatever labels the governments prefer (Geneva Conventions, 1949, common art. 2; ICTY, 1995, para. 70). That factual classification is distinct from political neutrality, and it would not make Jordan a party to the separate Iran–US conflict. Whether the older law of neutrality applies alongside the Charter is disputed, and nothing here turns on it: Jordan’s core rights — inviolability of its territory and safety of its population — exist under general international law regardless.
Jordan itself has condemned Iranian attacks on its territory and on its neighbors as violations of sovereignty, international law, and the Charter (Jordan Times, 2026a; Jordan Times, 2026b), and the Security Council’s condemnation of Iran’s attacks on host states, Jordan included, points the same way (UN Security Council, 2026). The conclusion on this branch remains the firmest available in the whole analysis: the Iranian strike on Jordanian territory without Jordanian consent violated Jordan’s sovereignty and Article 2(4) as against Jordan. On the available public record, Iran has not established a lawful justification against Jordan: it has not substantiated its claim that the targeted US assets operated beyond Jordanian control, demonstrated that the base contributed to continuing attacks on Iran, or shown that striking it was necessary.
5. Was the US Base a Lawful Military Target?
5.1 The Military-Objective Test
A military base is not automatically a lawful target in its entirety. Customary law, reflected in Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, limits attacks to objects which by their nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to military action, and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 52(2); ICRC, 2005, Rule 8). Both limbs must be satisfied for each object attacked, not for the installation as an undifferentiated whole.
Applied here, the framework favors Iran on classification. An air base garrisoned by the armed forces of a state with which Iran is in an international armed conflict is military by nature. If the base or its assets were being used in, or in support of, the US campaign against Iran, the effective-contribution limb is met through use as well. Neutralizing runways, aircraft, or command facilities at such a base during active hostilities would ordinarily offer a definite military advantage. The unverified element is the factual footing for particular aim points: on what is known, the base contained lawful military objectives, but it cannot be said that every object struck was one.
5.2 US Military Personnel
Members of the armed forces of a party to an international armed conflict are combatants and may be attacked at any time unless they are hors de combat or otherwise specially protected (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 43; ICRC, 2005, Rules 3 and 47). The deaths of two US service members, therefore, do not, by themselves, establish any violation of international humanitarian law. Killing enemy soldiers in an international armed conflict is not, standing alone, a war crime.
CENTCOM’s own description of the dead as killed in action while US and partner forces defended against the attack does not alter this analysis (CENTCOM, 2026). Personnel operating air-defense systems are performing a combat function; they are among the clearest examples of lawful targets. The legally significant unknowns lie elsewhere: whether any casualties were civilians, and whether protected persons were present at the installation. Neither is established.
5.3 Separate Objects Within the Installation
Targeting the law works object by object. Runways, hardened shelters, radar and air-defense systems, weapons storage, military aircraft, and communications nodes at a base engaged in a conflict each plausibly satisfy Article 52(2) on their own terms. The IRGC said it aimed at fighter-jet shelters and a large aircraft parking ramp at the al-Azraq base (NewsNation, 2026); if accurate, those are specific military objectives. Civilian contractors and other civilians, if present, retain their protection unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities (ICRC, 2005, Rule 6). Their presence at the installation is unverified. Any object serving both military and civilian functions would have to pass the same two-limb test, and nothing public identifies such an object among the aim points.
6. Did the Attack Comply With Targeting Rules?
6.1 Distinction
Attacks must be directed at specific military objectives; indiscriminate attacks, including those employing means incapable of being directed at a specific objective, are prohibited (Additional Protocol I, 1977, arts. 48 and 51(4); ICRC, 2005, Rules 1 and 12). The use of multiple ballistic missiles and drones does not itself make an attack indiscriminate; salvo size is not the test. Nor can accuracy be presumed: whether these particular weapons could be, and were, directed at specific military objectives depends on the missile types, guidance systems, and aim points employed, none of which has been disclosed. The claimed aim points are specific military objectives if the claims are accurate.
The record does not permit a verdict either way. Iran’s assertion that it struck military assets is a claim, not a finding. The joint statement of the United States, Jordan, and five Gulf partners asserts that Iranian strikes across the region endangered civilian populations and damaged civilian infrastructure (US Department of State, 2026). Weapon guidance quality, actual impact points, and the share of projectiles intercepted before reaching any target are all unknown for this strike.
6.2 Proportionality in Attack
The rule prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 51(5)(b); ICRC, 2005, Rule 14). The assessment is prospective: it turns on what the attacker could reasonably expect before striking, not on a casualty count afterwards. All casualties confirmed at the base so far are military personnel, and no civilian deaths from this particular strike have been confirmed as of 18 July 2026 (CBS News, 2026). Without knowing the expected civilian presence near the aim points or the military advantage Iran anticipated, no finding of a proportionality violation can responsibly be made. None can be excluded either.
6.3 Precautions
Attackers must take constant care to spare civilians, take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods, verify that targets are military objectives, and cancel or suspend attacks that prove unlawful (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 57; ICRC, 2005, Rules 15–19). Effective advance warning is owed only where circumstances permit, and civilians may be affected (ICRC, 2005, Rule 20). An attack on a defended military base is a context in which warning may defeat the operation, so no warning obligation can simply be assumed. Whether Iran verified its targets, how it timed the strike, and what alternatives it weighed are operational facts on which no public evidence exists. This section, more than any other, ends in an open verdict.
7. Could the Attack Constitute a War Crime?
A war-crime finding requires an applicable armed conflict, a prohibited act, a nexus between them, and proof of material and mental elements against identified individuals. The conflict exists. The difficulty is the prohibited act. The Rome Statute criminalizes, among other things, intentionally directing attacks against civilians or civilian objects, and intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that it will cause clearly excessive incidental civilian harm (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 8(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (iv)). Killing combatants at a military base fits none of these. On the confirmed facts, two service members died and others were wounded at a military installation; nothing verified so far shows civilians targeted, civilian objects deliberately struck at the base, or knowledge of clearly excessive civilian harm.
Jurisdiction adds a point worth stating precisely. Iran and the United States are not parties to the Rome Statute, but Jordan is, and the International Criminal Court may exercise jurisdiction over war crimes committed on the territory of a state party regardless of the perpetrator’s nationality (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 12(2)(a)). Conduct in Jordan, therefore, falls within the Court’s territorial reach in principle. The crime of aggression is different: the Court’s aggression jurisdiction excludes nationals of non-party states, so an aggression case against Iranian leaders is unavailable absent a Security Council referral (Rome Statute, 1998, arts. 15bis(5) and 15ter), and aggression is in any event a leadership crime (Rome Statute, 1998, art. 8bis(1)). Territorial jurisdiction, finally, means only that the Court could examine alleged conduct; it does not mean any crime has been established.
The broader point is definitional. An unlawful resort to force is a violation attributable to the state; it is not, without more, a war crime by anyone. The same holds for a violation of Jordan’s sovereignty. Using “war crime” as a label for any unlawful or shocking attack obscures the elements that actually have to be proved.
8. State Responsibility and Legal Consequences
The Revolutionary Guard Corps is an organ of the Iranian state, and its conduct is attributable to Iran under the customary rules reflected in the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (ILC, 2001, art. 4). Iran has publicly claimed the strikes, so attribution is not in dispute. The Articles are not a treaty, but courts and states treat their core provisions as reflecting custom.
If the analysis above is right, Iran committed an internationally wrongful act against Jordan and, unless its self-defense claim succeeds, against the United States. Self-defense precludes wrongfulness only insofar as the measure is lawful self-defense under the Charter (ILC, 2001, art. 21); it cannot launder a reprisal. The consequences are the standard ones: cessation and, where appropriate, assurances of non-repetition (ILC, 2001, art. 30), and full reparation for the injury caused, which could include compensation for the deaths, injuries, and material damage once breach, causation, and the scope of injury are established (ILC, 2001, arts. 31 and 36).
Both injured states may invoke Iran’s responsibility (ILC, 2001, art. 42). The available responses are constrained. Countermeasures may not involve the threat or use of force (ILC, 2001, art. 50(1)(a)), so any forcible reply must find its own justification in self-defense, judged by the same standards applied to Iran above. The Security Council has condemned Iran’s attacks on host states in Resolution 2817 without taking enforcement measures (UN Security Council, 2026); it retains authority to act under Chapter VII (United Nations, 1945, arts. 39 and 42), though the involvement of a permanent member on one side of the conflict makes that improbable in practice.
Also read
Conclusion
Three conclusions can be stated with confidence, and two cannot. First, the Iranian attack on the US base in Jordan violated Jordan’s sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force against Jordan: Iran neither sought nor received Jordanian consent, and on the public record, it has not established a lawful justification against Jordan. Second, as against the United States, the strike is unlawful unless Iran’s self-defense claim holds, and on the present record, it does not. The IRGC’s own statements frame the operation as reciprocal retaliation and pressure on host states; necessity is unproven because no connection between this base and US operations against Iran has been established; the region-wide pattern of strikes strains proportionality; and Iran’s notifications to the Security Council address the wider conflict rather than these strikes.
Third, the deaths of two US service members do not establish a war crime. They were combatants at a military installation, and their deaths are lawful under targeting law if the attack was directed at military objectives.
What remains open depends on evidence that does not yet exist publicly: whether every object Iran aimed at satisfied the military-objective test, whether the expected civilian harm was excessive, and what precautions were taken. Those questions determine compliance with the targeting rules, and they cannot be answered from claims and counterclaims issued within hours of the strike. The finding that the base was a plausible military objective and the finding that Iran’s resort to force was unlawful sit together without contradiction. Keeping those two bodies of law apart is what makes an honest answer possible.
References
Additional Protocol I (1977) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I). Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Axios (2026) ‘Two U.S. troops killed, one missing in Iranian missile attack on Jordan’, Axios, 18 July. Available at: https://www.axios.com/2026/07/18/iran-jordan-us-deaths-military-two-dead (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
CBS News (2026) ‘Iran war updates: 2 U.S. service members killed in Jordan defending against Iranian attacks’, CBS News, 18 July. Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-trump-strait-of-hormuz-attacks-persian-gulf/ (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
CENTCOM (2026) ‘CENTCOM statement on recently fallen, missing U.S. service members’, U.S. Central Command, 18 July. Available at: https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/PUBLIC-RELEASES/Article/4549635/centcom-statement-on-recently-fallen-missing-us-service-members/ (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Geneva Conventions (1949) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (I). Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
ICJ (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
ICJ (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/95 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
ICJ (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/90 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
ICJ (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/116 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
ICRC (2005) Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L., Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
ICTY (1995) Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, 2 October. Available at: https://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acdec/en/51002.htm (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
ILC (2001) Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Iran (2026a) Letter dated 28 February 2026 from the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2026/106. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/2026/106 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Iran (2026b) Letter dated 7 July 2026 from the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2026/558. New York: United Nations. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/S/2026/558 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Jordan Times (2026a) ‘Jordan condemns Iranian missile attack, reaffirms solidarity with Gulf states’, Jordan Times. Available at: https://jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-air-force-conducts-sorties-to-protect-kingdoms-skies-military (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Jordan Times (2026b) ‘Jordan condemns Iranian aggression against Gulf countries’, Jordan Times, 12 July. Available at: https://jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-condemns-iranian-aggression-against-gulf-countries (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
NewsNation (2026) ‘Iran attacks US military airbase in Jordan, destroying American fighter jets, IRGC claims’, NewsNation, 18 July. Available at: https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/iran-irgc-claims-attacks-us-military-airbase/amp/ (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Petra (2026a) ‘Jordan air defense systems intercept, neutralize four Iranian missiles’, Jordan News Agency (Petra), 14 July. Available at: https://petra.gov.jo/en/news/jordan-air-defense-systems-intercept-neutralize-four-iranian-missiles (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Petra (2026b) ‘Jordan air defense systems intercept, neutralize three Iranian missiles’, Jordan News Agency (Petra), 15 July. Available at: https://petra.gov.jo/en/news/jordan-air-defense-systems-intercept-neutralize-three-iranian-missiles (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Petra (2026c) ‘Armed Forces intercept 10 missiles over national airspace’, Jordan News Agency (Petra), 18 July. Available at: https://petra.gov.jo/en/news/armed-forces-intercept-10-missiles-over-national-airspace (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Rome Statute (1998) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Hague: International Criminal Court. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
The Hill (2026) ‘Iran attacks injure several US troops in Jordan this week: Report’, The Hill, 17 July. Available at: https://thehill.com/homenews/5975822-iranian-attacks-jordan-us-bases/ (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
The Jerusalem Post (2026) ‘Iran claims strikes on US bases in Kuwait, Jordan, Bahrain’, The Jerusalem Post, 18 July. Available at: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-902870 (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
The Standard (2026) ‘Iran says it struck US air base in Jordan, US military ends five hours of attacks’, The Standard (Hong Kong), 14 July. Available at: https://www.thestandard.com.hk/world/article/337175/Iran-says-it-struck-US-air-base-in-Jordan-US-military-ends-five-hours-of-attacks (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
UN General Assembly (1974) Resolution 3314 (XXIX), Definition of Aggression, 14 December. Available at: https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/3314(XXIX) (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
UN Security Council (2026) Resolution 2817 (2026), 11 March. Available at: https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/2817(2026) (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
United Nations (1945) Charter of the United Nations. San Francisco: United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
United Nations (2026) ‘Iran strikes could trigger wider conflict in Middle East, Secretary-General warns, as Security Council speakers call for urgent restraint, return to talks’, Meetings Coverage SC/16307, 28 February. Available at: https://press.un.org/en/2026/sc16307.doc.htm (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
US Department of State (2026) ‘Joint statement on Iran’s missile and drone attacks in the region’, Office of the Spokesperson, 1 March. Available at: https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/03/joint-statement-on-irans-missile-and-drone-attacks-in-the-region/ (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
Ynetnews (2026) ‘Iran fires missiles at Jordan, then appeals to “the Jordanian people”’, Ynetnews, 13 July. Available at: https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hk4fldxnfx (Accessed: 18 July 2026).
