Civilian Protection Rules in Urban Strikes: Distinction, Proportionality, Precautions

Overview

When military strikes target objectives in or near populated areas, international humanitarian law imposes three overlapping obligations on the attacking party: distinction (differentiating between combatants and civilians), proportionality (ensuring civilian harm is not excessive relative to the military advantage), and precaution (taking all feasible steps to reduce civilian risk). These rules, codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, apply to all parties in the Iran conflict regardless of which side initiated hostilities.

This article explains what these legal obligations mean in practice, how they apply to the types of strikes being conducted in Iranian urban areas, and what the available evidence suggests about compliance. It draws on ICRC guidance, UNHCR displacement data, WHO health-system alerts, and AP field reporting to assess what is known and what remains unverified about civilian harm in the current operations.

Urban warfare presents uniquely difficult challenges for civilian protection. Military objectives in cities -- command posts, communications infrastructure, air defense batteries -- are frequently located near hospitals, schools, and residential areas. The choice of weapon system, the time of day a strike is conducted, and whether advance warning is given all affect civilian casualties. Understanding these rules is critical for evaluating the claims made by both sides and for assessing whether the conduct of hostilities meets the legal standards that both the United States and Iran are bound to uphold.

What We Know

As of February 28, 2026, coverage on civilian protection rules urban strikes should prioritize primary documentation and high-credibility reporting. This section focuses on confirmed information and labels uncertainty directly.

• Current reporting on civilian protection rules urban strikes should prioritize named institutional sources and date-labeled updates. ICRC distinction/proportionality explainer
• Technical and legal claims are strongest when primary documents and independent reporting align. UNHCR de-escalation release
• Where verification is incomplete, this page labels uncertainty instead of implying certainty. WHO partner humanitarian alert
• Forward-looking sections are conditional and evidence-based, not predictive claims. AP live updates (Feb 28, 2026)
• Internal links connect this page to timeline and hub coverage for continuity. AP: US and Israel launch attack

Analysis

The principle of distinction is being tested in ways that reflect the specific characteristics of the Iran conflict. U.S. strikes have reportedly targeted IRGC command centers, missile production facilities, and integrated air defense systems -- all of which are legitimate military objectives under IHL. However, many of these facilities are located in or near major population centers, including Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz. The ICRC has noted that when military objectives are embedded in urban areas, the attacking party bears an elevated obligation to verify that the target is indeed military in nature and that the means of attack are chosen to minimize civilian harm. Satellite imagery and field reporting suggest that some strikes have caused damage to residential structures adjacent to military sites, though the extent of civilian casualties remains disputed.

Proportionality assessments in urban strikes are inherently judgment calls, and they are made ex ante -- based on what the commander knew or should have known at the time of the attack, not on the actual outcome. This distinction is legally important but practically difficult for outside observers to evaluate. The U.S. has stated that its targeting process incorporates collateral damage estimates and legal review at multiple levels of command. Iran has alleged that strikes on dual-use infrastructure -- power grids, communications towers, transportation hubs -- constitute indiscriminate attacks under Protocol I, Article 51(4). Whether specific strikes cross the proportionality threshold will depend on detailed operational information that is not yet publicly available.

The precautionary obligations under Article 57 of Additional Protocol I deserve particular attention. These include the requirement to give "effective advance warning" of attacks that may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit. Both the U.S. and Israel have used leaflet drops and broadcast warnings in previous conflicts, but the effectiveness of such warnings depends on whether civilians have safe routes of evacuation and sufficient time to move. UNHCR has reported significant internal displacement from urban areas in western Iran, with limited humanitarian corridor access. The WHO Health Cluster has also flagged damage to medical facilities and supply chain disruptions that compound the civilian impact of strikes.

A critical emerging issue is the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects (EWIPA) in populated areas. The 2022 Political Declaration on EWIPA, which over 80 states have endorsed, calls on parties to restrict or avoid the use of such weapons in populated areas due to the predictable pattern of civilian harm they cause. While the Declaration is not legally binding, it reflects an evolving norm. Reports of heavy munitions and large-warhead cruise missiles being used against targets in densely populated Iranian cities have drawn condemnation from the UN Secretary-General and multiple humanitarian organizations.

What's Next

Several developments will shape how civilian protection rules are applied and assessed in this conflict going forward.

• Independent damage assessments from ICRC teams and UN fact-finding missions, if they are granted access to strike sites, will provide the first verifiable data on whether specific attacks met the proportionality and precaution standards required by IHL. ICRC distinction/proportionality explainer
• The UN Human Rights Council could authorize a commission of inquiry to investigate potential violations of IHL by all parties, which would establish an official evidentiary record for future accountability proceedings. UNHCR de-escalation release
• Escalation to new target categories -- particularly dual-use infrastructure such as power plants, water treatment facilities, or telecommunications networks -- would significantly alter the civilian harm calculus and could trigger formal ICC preliminary examinations. WHO partner humanitarian alert
• UNHCR displacement figures from Iranian border regions and neighboring countries will indicate whether internal displacement is accelerating and whether humanitarian corridors are functioning. AP live updates (Feb 28, 2026)
• WHO reports on hospital functionality and medical supply chains in strike-affected areas will be critical for assessing indirect civilian harm caused by infrastructure damage. AP: US and Israel launch attack

Why It Matters

Civilian protection rules exist because the history of armed conflict demonstrates that without enforceable legal constraints, civilian casualties escalate dramatically -- particularly in urban environments. The Iran strikes are occurring in and around cities with millions of residents, and the degree to which IHL obligations are respected will directly determine the scale of civilian suffering. Every strike that damages a hospital, disrupts a water system, or destroys residential housing has cascading humanitarian consequences that extend far beyond the immediate blast radius.

The way civilian protection standards are applied in this conflict will also shape the normative framework for future military operations worldwide. If strikes on urban targets proceed with inadequate precautions and face no meaningful accountability, it weakens the deterrent effect of IHL for all future conflicts. Conversely, rigorous compliance and transparent post-strike damage assessments reinforce the principle that military operations must be conducted within legal boundaries, regardless of the strategic stakes involved.

For humanitarian organizations on the ground, these legal standards are not abstract -- they determine access, safety, and operational capacity. The ICRC, UNHCR, WHO, and other agencies rely on the legal framework of distinction and precaution to negotiate access to affected populations, establish humanitarian corridors, and operate medical facilities in conflict zones. When those rules are violated or ignored, humanitarian operations become impossible, and the civilian population bears the full cost of the conflict without any safety net.

Related Coverage

• War Powers Resolution and Iran Strikes: Congress Response
• Article 51 Self-Defense: Legal Explainer for Iran Strikes
• UN Resolution 2231 and Snapback Sanctions Explained
• How to Read Casualty Claims in Fast-Moving Conflicts
• Displacement Risks After Iran-Israel Escalation

Sources

Last updated: February 28, 2026. This article is revised when new evidence materially changes what can be stated with confidence.