By Lara Kajs
Dispatches from the Field
Washington, DC—10 March 2026
The current military confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran represents the culmination of a diplomatic framework that gradually unraveled over the past decade. What began as one of the most ambitious international efforts to limit nuclear proliferation—the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal—has ultimately given way to renewed geopolitical confrontation.
American and Israeli forces have now launched a series of coordinated air and naval strikes against Iranian military targets as part of an expanding conflict that began in late February 2026. The escalation marks one of the most dangerous moments in Middle Eastern security dynamics in decades, as well as one of the most significant direct confrontations between the United States and Iran in modern history.
Understanding how the region arrived at this point requires revisiting the diplomatic agreement that once sought to restrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions while preserving regional stability under international law.
A Diplomatic Effort to Restrain Iran’s Nuclear Program
The JCPOA emerged from years of negotiations during the administration of Barack Obama and was finalized in July 2015 between Iran and six world powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany, alongside the European Union.
The agreement sought to address growing international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program could eventually lead to the development of nuclear weapons. At the same time, it recognized Iran’s right under international law to pursue a civilian nuclear energy program. The resulting framework attempted to balance these competing objectives by imposing strict limits on Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for significant economic relief.
Iran formally accepted and signed the agreement, committing to a series of far-reaching restrictions designed to curb its nuclear capabilities.
Under the terms of the deal, Iran agreed to dramatically reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium, cutting it by roughly ninety-eight percent. The country also accepted a cap on uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent purity – sufficient for civilian nuclear energy production but far below the enrichment levels required to produce weapons-grade material.
Iran further agreed to dismantle a large portion of its centrifuge infrastructure, reducing the number of operating centrifuges by roughly two-thirds. Uranium enrichment activities were largely confined to the country’s Natanz facility, significantly limiting the number of locations where nuclear material could be processed.
To verify compliance, the agreement established an extensive monitoring system administered by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These inspectors were granted regular access to Iranian nuclear facilities and supply chains, creating one of the most comprehensive nuclear verification regimes ever implemented.
These restrictions were designed to extend Iran’s “breakout time”—the period required to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon—to roughly one year, providing the international community with time to respond diplomatically if Iran attempted to pursue nuclear weapons capability.
In return, the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations agreed to lift many of the economic sanctions that had severely constrained Iran’s economy. The removal of sanctions allowed Iran to regain access to international financial systems, resume large-scale oil exports, and recover billions of dollars in previously frozen assets.
For several years following the agreement’s implementation, international inspectors reported that Iran was largely adhering to the deal’s requirements. Yet the durability of this diplomatic framework ultimately depended on sustained political support among the participating governments – support that began to erode only a few years after the agreement took effect.
The Breakdown of the Nuclear Framework
The stability of the nuclear deal began to deteriorate in 2018 when the United States, under President Donald Trump, withdrew from the agreement and reinstated sweeping economic sanctions against Iran.
The Trump administration justified its withdrawal by arguing that the JCPOA contained structural weaknesses. In their view, the agreement imposed only temporary limits on key elements of Iran’s nuclear program and failed to address broader regional security concerns, including Iran’s ballistic missile development and its support for armed proxy groups across the Middle East.
From a legal perspective, the US withdrawal raised complex questions about the durability of international agreements negotiated through executive diplomacy rather than formal treaty ratification. Although the JCPOA had been endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, it was not ratified by the US Senate as a treaty, allowing a subsequent administration to withdraw from the arrangement.
Following the American withdrawal, Iran gradually began reducing its own compliance with the agreement’s provisions. Tehran expanded uranium enrichment beyond the limits established by the deal and increased its nuclear stockpiles.
Although European governments attempted to preserve the agreement through diplomatic efforts and economic mechanisms designed to bypass U.S. sanctions, these initiatives ultimately failed to restore the original framework. Over time, the JCPOA effectively collapsed as both sides moved away from its commitments.
From Strategic Tension to Military Confrontation
Tensions between Washington and Tehran continued to intensify in the years that followed. By early 2026, those tensions escalated into direct military confrontation when the United States and Israel launched a series of coordinated strikes against Iranian missile installations, air defense systems, and military infrastructure.
The conflict intensified dramatically after an Israeli airstrike near Tehran reportedly killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, a development that significantly escalated hostilities across the region.
Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting military installations and strategic infrastructure throughout the Persian Gulf, including locations associated with U.S. forces. American officials have described the military campaign as an effort to neutralize Iran’s missile capabilities and prevent the country from achieving a nuclear weapons capacity.
These military actions have also triggered significant debate among scholars and practitioners of international law. Under the framework established by the United Nations Charter, the use of force by states is generally prohibited except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the United Nations Security Council. As a result, legal scholars and policymakers have debated whether the current military operations fall within the scope of lawful self-defense or represent an unauthorized use of force under international law.
This legal framework is primarily defined by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. The only widely recognized exceptions are actions taken in self-defense under Article 51 or military operations explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council.
The current conflict also raises broader concerns about the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Institutions focused on atrocity prevention have long emphasized that the erosion of legal restraints on the use of force can increase the risk of humanitarian catastrophe. When diplomatic frameworks collapse and military escalation accelerates, civilian populations often bear the heaviest burden. For organizations working in the fields of genocide prevention and civilian protection, the unfolding crisis underscores the importance of maintaining strong international legal norms governing both the initiation of war and the conduct of hostilities.
Renewed Debate Over Diplomacy, Security, and International Law
The outbreak of war has reignited debate among policymakers, diplomats, and legal scholars about the long-term consequences of the nuclear deal and its eventual collapse.
Supporters of the JCPOA argue that the agreement successfully constrained Iran’s nuclear program for several years while establishing a diplomatic framework grounded in international law and multilateral cooperation. In their view, the collapse of the nuclear agreement removed a key diplomatic mechanism for managing nuclear risk and regional tensions.
Critics, however, maintain that the deal merely delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions while failing to address other sources of instability in the region. From this perspective, the agreement provided only a temporary solution to a broader geopolitical challenge.
The collapse of the nuclear agreement now appears as a pivotal turning point in the trajectory of U.S.–Iran relations, marking the moment when a diplomatic framework intended to manage nuclear risk gave way to renewed military confrontation.
Whether the current conflict leads to renewed diplomacy or deeper regional war may depend in part on whether international institutions retain the capacity to reassert legal constraints on the use of force.
Photo Credit: “Security Council adopts Resolution on Iran Nuclear Deal” by United Nations Photos. Licensed by CC By NC ND 2.0
Atrocity Prevention Lens
Escalating interstate conflict carries significant risks for civilian populations, particularly when military operations expand into densely populated areas or when critical infrastructure is targeted. Analysts working in atrocity prevention often view the erosion of diplomatic mechanisms and legal constraints on the use of force as warning indicators that the risk of large-scale humanitarian harm may increase. Monitoring compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law and reinforcing international accountability mechanisms, therefore, remain essential components of preventing mass atrocities in situations of armed conflict.
Legal Framework
Several core principles of international law govern the issues raised by the current conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran.
Prohibition on the Use of Force
Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state except in narrowly defined circumstances.
Self-Defense
Article 51 of the Charter allows states to use force in self-defense if they are subjected to an armed attack. The interpretation of what constitutes an imminent attack remains contested within international law.
Security Council Authorization
Military action may also be authorized collectively by the United Nations Security Council when the body determines that international peace and security are threatened.
Protection of Civilians
During armed conflict, the conduct of hostilities is regulated by international humanitarian law and treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, which require parties to distinguish between civilian objects and military targets, and prohibit attacks expected to cause disproportionate civilian harm.
About TGR
The Genocide Report (TGR) publishes analysis and educational resources on conflict, international law, and atrocity prevention. Its work seeks to bridge academic research, field realities, and public understanding of mass violence and civilian protection.
Lara Kajs is the founder and executive director of The Genocide Report, a Washington, DC-based educational nonprofit focused on atrocity prevention and international law. She is the author of several field-based books on conflict, displacement, humanitarian crises, and international humanitarian law, drawing on extensive research and field experience in Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan. Her writing and public speaking focus on atrocity crimes, forced displacement, the protection of civilians, and the legal frameworks governing armed conflict.