Middle East on Edge as U.S. and Israel Escalate War With Iran ___ An Interview With Arda Tunca

As the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran intensifies, serious questions are emerging about diplomacy, international law, and the risks of wider regional war. Arda Tunca, columnist at Politikyol.com, examines the legal and strategic implications of launching military strikes during ongoing negotiations, the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, and the broader consequences of escalation. His analysis focuses on whether the conduct of the war aligns with the principles of international humanitarian law and whether abandoning diplomacy in favor of force could push the Middle East toward a far more dangerous and expansive conflict.

1- How should launching an attack in the middle of diplomatic talks be viewed?

According to the information reported at the time, diplomatic negotiations between the United States and Iran had recently resumed with the aim of resolving the nuclear dispute and preventing a wider military confrontation. Iran indicated that it was prepared to discuss limitations on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief and recognition of its right to enrich uranium, although it ruled out linking those talks to its ballistic missile program.

At the same time, statements from the Israeli side suggest that preparations for military action had been underway long before the bombing began. An Israeli defence official said that the operation had been planned for months in coordination with Washington and that the timing of the launch had been decided weeks in advance. This indicates that the military option was not a sudden reaction but part of a longer preparation process.

If that is the case, an important question inevitably arises from the standpoint of diplomacy. When negotiations are taking place while a military operation is already being prepared, it becomes legitimate to ask whether diplomacy was intended as a genuine path toward compromise or whether it functioned mainly as a political instrument to demonstrate that negotiations had been attempted.

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel began bombing Iranian targets, effectively ending the diplomatic track that had recently been reopened. From the perspective of international law and conflict prevention, this sequence is deeply troubling. Diplomacy can only work if it is given real space to operate.

My position is not to take sides but to stress a fundamental principle: when military escalation occurs while negotiations are still active, the credibility of diplomacy is weakened and the likelihood of wider conflict increases. In international relations, the protection of civilian life ultimately depends on whether diplomacy is treated as a real solution or merely as a preliminary stage before war.

2-How should bombing a girls’ school in the very first minutes of a war be judged?

If a girls’ school was struck during the opening phase of the conflict, this raises extremely serious concerns under international humanitarian law. Schools are classified as civilian objects and are protected unless they are being used for military purposes.

United Nations human rights experts reacted very strongly to the reported incident. They stated that attacks on schools violate the protections granted to civilians and educational institutions under international humanitarian law and warned that deliberately targeting such facilities may constitute a war crime if the site was not being used for military activity.

The United States also acknowledged the seriousness of the allegation. U.S. officials indicated that the incident was under investigation and stressed that the United States does not intentionally target civilian infrastructure, including schools, and that any credible report of civilian harm must be examined carefully.

From the perspective of international law, the principle involved here is very clear. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols require strict distinction between military targets and civilian objects. Educational institutions, particularly those attended by children, fall among the most strongly protected civilian sites.

For that reason, if a school was indeed struck in the opening minutes of the conflict, the incident requires a transparent and independent investigation. Accountability and protection of civilian life are central pillars of the laws of war.

My position is therefore straightforward: regardless of which side is involved, the protection of civilians—especially children—must remain an absolute priority, and any violation of that principle must be addressed under international law.

3-Is targeting political officials acceptable, given that it violates international law?

The deliberate targeting of political leaders raises very serious legal questions under both international law and domestic constitutional law. The United Nations Charter establishes a general prohibition on the use of force against other states except in two circumstances: when the U.N. Security Council authorizes it or when a state acts in self-defense in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat.

In the current case, many legal experts argue that neither condition clearly applies. The United States justified the attack by claiming that Iran posed an imminent threat and could soon develop a nuclear weapon. However, according to available reporting, these claims were not accompanied by publicly presented evidence and some intelligence assessments did not support them. Under international law, the concept of pre-emptive self-defense requires clear and compelling proof of an imminent and overwhelming threat.

The targeting of a political leader adds another layer of complexity. In peacetime, assassination is prohibited. Even within the United States, Executive Order 12333 explicitly bans assassination by U.S. government personnel or anyone acting on their behalf. In wartime, however, the killing of an enemy leader could potentially be considered a lawful act if that individual is deemed part of the military command structure. This is why legal experts say the legality of such an action depends on whether a state of war legally exists and whether the targeted individual can be considered a military leader.

Beyond these legal technicalities, there is a broader principle that should guide international conduct. Regardless of the nature of a regime, no country should claim the right to change another country’s political leadership through military force unless there is a clear and demonstrable imminent threat. If that principle is weakened, it risks creating a world in which powerful states decide the political fate of weaker ones.

History also provides cautionary examples. In 2003, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq on the grounds that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction. After the invasion, extensive searches failed to find evidence of an active nuclear weapons program. That experience has made the international community far more cautious about accepting claims of imminent threats without clear and verifiable evidence.

For this reason, the central issue should not be political alignment with any side but adherence to international law. The rules governing the use of force exist precisely to prevent wars based on uncertain intelligence or strategic calculations. If those rules are ignored, the stability of the international system becomes far more fragile.

4-How should an attack on an unarmed Iranian naval vessel stationed in India during a festival be assessed?

From the standpoint of international humanitarian law, the legality of attacking a naval vessel depends primarily on whether it is considered a legitimate military target. Warships belong to the armed forces of a state and are generally classified as military objects. For this reason, legal experts noted that a submarine strike against an Iranian military vessel in international waters could fall within the laws of armed conflict.

However, the broader legal justification for the attack depends on the overall context of the war itself. The United States justified the wider military operation by arguing that it was acting to eliminate an imminent threat posed by Iran. In that framework, a key legal question arises: whether a warship operating far from Iranian territory and not actively engaged in hostilities can reasonably be considered part of such an imminent threat.

Legal experts have pointed out that if the objective of the operation is to prevent an immediate attack, then the connection between that objective and a distant naval vessel would need to be clearly demonstrated. Without such a connection, the justification becomes more difficult to sustain under the logic of self-defense.

There is also a broader diplomatic dimension. According to available information, the vessel had previously participated in activities hosted in India and was not engaged in combat at the time. Attacking military assets that are not actively involved in hostilities risks widening the scope of a conflict and increasing tensions across a larger geographic area.

My position remains grounded in international law and conflict prevention. Even when an object qualifies as a military target, the principles of necessity, proportionality, and clear connection to the stated military objective must still apply. Without those elements, the risk is that military actions expand beyond defensive purposes and contribute to a broader escalation of war.

5-Did Israel set a trap for Trump that the United States ended up falling into?

Describing the situation as one country “trapping” another may be too strong and too speculative. However, some publicly available information raises legitimate questions about how the decision to escalate militarily was reached.

Earlier statements from Israeli officials indicated that preparations for military action had been underway for a considerable period of time and that operational planning had begun months before the strikes were launched. If military planning had indeed progressed to that stage well in advance, it suggests that the option of force was already firmly on the table long before the bombing began.

This does not necessarily mean that one country manipulated the other. However, it does indicate that Israel may have played a particularly significant role in shaping the timing and momentum of the military escalation. In alliance politics, such dynamics are not unusual. Partners may share strategic goals, but one actor can sometimes push more strongly for military action than another.

From a broader strategic perspective, the more important question is not who influenced whom, but whether the escalation has made the conflict harder to control. Now that the war has entered its second week, the risks of regional spillover and prolonged confrontation appear to be increasing.

My own position remains anchored in international law and diplomacy rather than in attributing political motives. Military action should always be the last resort. When force is used while diplomatic alternatives were still available, the priority should quickly shift toward de-escalation and the protection of civilian life.

6-How should attacks on civilian infrastructure and residential areas during wartime be viewed?

International humanitarian law is very clear on the protection of civilians during armed conflict. One of its central principles is the rule of distinction, which requires all parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between civilian objects and military targets.

Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions states that parties to a conflict must direct their operations only against military objectives. Article 51 further establishes that civilians must not be the object of attack and prohibits acts or threats of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population.

International law also prohibits indiscriminate attacks. Article 51 explicitly states that attacks which cannot be directed at a specific military objective, or which employ methods that strike military targets and civilians without distinction, are forbidden.

In addition, the principle of proportionality requires that even when a legitimate military target exists, an attack must not cause civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

For these reasons, attacks on residential areas, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, schools, or other civilian facilities raise extremely serious legal concerns. If civilians are deliberately targeted, such actions may constitute war crimes under international humanitarian law.

My position on this issue is unequivocal. Regardless of which country is conducting military operations or which population is affected, I condemn the targeting of civilians. The protection of civilian life is one of the most fundamental principles of international law, and it must apply equally to all sides in any conflict.

7-Does escalating the conflict in this way risk dragging the entire region into a wider war?

The war that began on 28 February 2026 between the United States, Israel, and Iran has already created ripple effects across the wider Middle East. Military bases in several countries have become potential targets, and the geographic scope of the conflict has expanded beyond the original battlefield.

History shows that conflicts in this region rarely remain confined to two or three actors. Once military operations spread across borders and involve multiple states, the probability of further escalation increases significantly. The presence of military bases, strategic waterways, and alliances means that additional countries can become involved even if they were not part of the original confrontation.

From the perspective of international law and global stability, preventing regional war must be a priority. The United Nations Charter was designed precisely to limit the spread of armed conflict between states. The use of force should always remain the last resort, and even during ongoing hostilities, diplomatic channels should remain open.

My position is therefore straightforward. The expansion of war across a wider region would dramatically increase the risks to civilian populations, economic stability, and international security. Regardless of political disagreements or strategic rivalries, the international community should prioritize de-escalation and diplomacy in order to prevent the conflict from spreading further.