WASHINGTON (Realist English). Human rights organizations have criticized US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he declared that “no quarter” would be given to Iran as the United States and Israel continue their military campaign against the country.
“We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing. No quarter, no mercy for our enemies,” Hegseth told reporters on Friday.
Legal experts and rights advocates say such statements contradict international humanitarian law. Under the Hague Convention and other treaties, threatening that no quarter will be given — meaning no prisoners will be taken and surrendering fighters will not be spared — is prohibited.
Domestic legislation, including the US War Crimes Act of 1996, also bans such policies, and US military doctrine warns against using or endorsing “no quarter” threats.
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser at the International Crisis Group, said the remarks raise serious concerns.
“These comments are very striking,” Finucane said. “They raise questions about whether this kind of belligerent rhetoric could influence how the war is actually conducted on the battlefield.”
Hegseth has previously dismissed concerns about international legal restrictions, saying he would not accept what he described as “stupid rules of engagement” or “politically correct wars.”
His comments have fueled fears among analysts that measures designed to minimize civilian casualties could be sidelined in favor of a strategy focused on maximum lethality.
The criticism intensified after reports that a US strike hit a girls’ school in southern Iran, killing more than 170 people, most of them children. According to available estimates, the war has left at least 1,400 people dead in Iran and displaced millions.
Legal concerns over “no quarter”
The prohibition against declaring “no quarter” has been part of the laws of war for more than a century. It was reinforced after World War II, when Nazi officials were prosecuted at the Nuremberg trials for denying quarter to enemy forces.
“The core principle is that executing people who have laid down their arms is both inhumane and counterproductive,” Finucane said.
He added that even publicly announcing such a policy could itself constitute a war crime under international law.
Growing criticism of conduct of war
The US and Israel have already faced accusations of violating international law in the conflict with Iran. Some analysts have described the initial strike on February 28 as an “unprovoked” attack.
Further controversy followed the sinking of the Iranian naval vessel IRIS Dena by a US submarine near Sri Lanka while the ship was returning from a naval exercise in India. The attack reportedly killed at least 84 people.
Iranian officials said the vessel was not fully armed at the time and questioned whether it could have been intercepted rather than destroyed. They also accused US forces of failing to assist sailors after the ship sank, assistance that is generally required under the Geneva Conventions.
Hegseth described the incident as a “quiet death” and reiterated that US forces were fighting “to win.”
President Donald Trump later commented that he had asked military leaders why the ship had been sunk instead of captured.
“One of my generals said, ‘Sir, it’s a lot more fun doing it this way,’” Trump said.
Concerns about escalation
Human rights advocates warn that rhetoric dismissing legal restraints can influence military behavior.
Sarah Yager, Washington director at Human Rights Watch, said the language used by senior officials could shape the operational environment for US forces.
“Rhetoric from leadership matters because it affects how soldiers interpret their orders,” she said. “Language that dismisses legal limits is a serious red flag.”
Monitoring group Airwars also reported that the pace of US and Israeli strikes in Iran has been unusually intense. According to its estimates, the United States used nearly $5.6 billion worth of munitions in the first two days of the conflict.
The organization said more targets were struck during the first 100 hours of the Iran campaign than during the first six months of the US military campaign against ISIL.
Following Hegseth’s remarks, Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley described the Pentagon chief as a “dangerous amateur,” citing the deadly strike on the Iranian school as an example of the risks posed by aggressive rules of engagement.
“Failing to distinguish a civilian school from a military target led to the deaths of more than 150 students and teachers,” Merkley wrote in a social media post.