The recent exchange of missile fire between Israel and Iran has renewed scrutiny of cluster munitions and their status under international law. Neither country is a party to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, meaning there is no absolute treaty ban governing their actions. According to legal expert Liron Libman, customary international law does not prohibit cluster munitions outright, but their use must comply with principles such as distinction and proportionality.

The core legal question is whether Iranian strikes, reportedly involving Khorramshahr-4 missiles, intentionally targeted civilians or were carried out indiscriminately. International law forbids deliberate attacks on civilians and bans weapons use that cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Reports of munitions landing in residential areas raise concerns that such principles may have been violated.

Israel's own past use of cluster munitions, particularly during the Second Lebanon War in 2006, remains a point of legal and ethical debate. The Winograd Commission found significant gaps between claimed and actual failure rates of submunitions, with many unexploded bomblets posing long-term risks to civilians. The commission cited unclear orders and disciplinary failures, and stressed the need for strict oversight and accurate strike data to mitigate post-conflict harm.

Ultimately, the legality of cluster munitions use by either side depends on the specific circumstances of each strike, including weapon characteristics, targeting decisions, and the surrounding civilian environment. While not categorically banned for these states, their use carries significant legal risks and potential consequences under customary international law.