Source: The Conversation – UK – By Saeed Bagheri, Assistant Professor of International Law, University of Reading
Israeli strikes targeted oil facilities near the Iranian capital of Tehran over the weekend. Two oil refineries, both of which had been attacked by Israel in 2025, and two oil storage facilities were hit. According to Iran’s deputy health minister, Ali Jafarian, at least four people were killed by the strikes.
The strikes raise two main questions. First is whether an oil refinery truly qualifies as a legitimate military target under international humanitarian law. And second is whether the rule of proportionality – that military actions are not excessive in relation to their intended aim – should have constrained an attack of this nature.
The principle of distinction forms the cornerstone of the laws governing the conduct of hostilities. It requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between civilian and military objects. The Geneva conventions, a set of treaties that establish rules for humane treatment during wars, also say that parties must limit their attacks to military objectives.
Article 52 of the conventions provides the authoritative definition of a military object. It says an object is a legitimate target if it makes an effective contribution to military action by its nature, location, purpose or use. It adds that the destruction of such an object must also offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Oil refineries showcase the complexity of applying these principles. They convert crude oil into gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel, all of which are essential both for civilian life and military operations. Armed forces may depend on these fuels to operate vehicles, aircraft and naval vessels, sustaining their combat and logistical capabilities.
Disrupting fuel production can therefore weaken the military capability of an adversary. This could make an oil refinery a legitimate target. However, there is no convincing evidence yet that the two targeted facilities near Tehran – the Tondgouyan and Shahran oil refineries – were important sources of fuel for the Iranian military.
Even if an oil refinery contributes to military actions, its importance to the civilian economy remains significant from a legal standpoint. Many states depend on continuous energy supplies for transportation, industry and public services.
Fuel shortages can disrupt public transportation, delay the delivery of food and medical supplies and impede electricity generation. In densely populated urban areas like Tehran, which is home to around 15 million people, such disruptions can have a serious impact on daily life and economic stability.
These considerations are reinforced by Article 54 of the Geneva conventions. This safeguards objects from attack that are considered indispensable for the survival of the civilian population.
The provision explicitly references foodstuffs, water installations and agricultural areas. But its underlying rationale emphasises the importance of protecting systems that are essential to fundamental living conditions, so probably includes energy infrastructure that underpins the operation of water treatment, sanitation and emergency services.
Principle of proportionality
The principle of proportionality provides a mechanism to balance military necessity and humanitarian protection. Article 51 of the Geneva conventions prohibits attacks that are expected to cause incidental civilian harm that is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
In the case of oil refineries, proportionality analysis should account not only for immediate casualties and structural damage. It should also account for the expected downstream impact on civilian life. This includes the impact of service interruptions, economic disruption, fuel shortages and, perhaps most importantly, reduced air, water and soil quality.
Environmental contamination, particularly degraded water quality, has been documented following attacks on energy facilities in previous conflicts. The most notable instances have been in Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf war, Syria in 2015 and Ukraine since 2022.
Under international humanitarian law, adversaries must take these considerations into account when assessing what is proportionate in the pursuit of military objectives. They must weigh the anticipated military advantage against the broader consequences for civilians who depend on the targeted facilities.
Tehran’s high energy demands mean that damage to refineries that supply fuel to millions could cause severe disruption. It could also cause air and water pollution. The Iranian authorities warned of toxic acid rain immediately after the attacks on Tehran’s oil facilities, and many residents have since reported headaches and difficulty breathing.
These consequences do not appear to have been considered in the Israeli military’s proportionality assessment. No feasible precautions or mitigation measures were reported prior to the attacks. There also does not appear to be evidence that attacking the refineries would yield a definite military advantage.
International humanitarian law does not categorically prohibit attacks on energy infrastructure. But it does require careful, context-specific assessments of the military relevance of an energy facility and the possible civilian harm caused by its destruction.
For now, assessing the legality of the Israeli strikes is difficult. More detail on the role of the refineries in Iran’s military operations and the anticipated military advantage achieved by targeting them will be required before a judgment can be made.
Saeed Bagheri does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
– ref. What international law says about the Israeli strikes on Iranian oil facilities – https://theconversation.com/what-international-law-says-about-the-israeli-strikes-on-iranian-oil-facilities-277875