AI on the battlefield: Is Palantir complicit in war crimes against Iran?

TEHRAN - Artificial intelligence has fundamentally transformed modern warfare. Military superiority increasingly depends not only on weapons but also on the ability to collect, integrate, and analyze vast amounts of data in real time.

Contemporary wars are planned as much through algorithms and data platforms as they are fought on the battlefield.

Private technology companies have consequently become influential actors in military operations. Firms such as Palantir provide platforms that integrate intelligence from satellites, drones, electronic surveillance, cyber networks, and other sources to support military planning and target identification. 

Although these companies maintain that the final decision to use force remains with human commanders, algorithmic recommendations inevitably influence operational decision-making.

This development raises a critical legal question:

If an AI system substantially contributes to identifying or prioritising a military target, and the resulting operation violates international humanitarian law, who bears legal responsibility?

The question is no longer merely theoretical. Recent military operations involving the United States and Israel against Iran have highlighted the growing role of AI-assisted intelligence and targeting. While no court has established the legal responsibility of any specific technology company for particular operations, these developments demonstrate that artificial intelligence has become an integral operational component of modern warfare.

International humanitarian law applies regardless of whether military decisions are supported by human analysts or AI systems. The principles of distinction, proportionality, precaution, and military necessity remain fully applicable. AI itself possesses neither legal personality nor criminal intent; responsibility therefore continues to rest with natural persons. However, where corporate executives knowingly provide technologies that substantially facilitate internationally wrongful conduct, questions of legal accountability inevitably arise.

This concern is reinforced by Article 36 of Additional Protocol I, which requires the legal review of new means and methods of warfare, as well as by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which require companies to exercise human rights due diligence and avoid contributing to serious violations.

Although the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction only over natural persons, Article 25 of the Rome Statute provides for individual criminal responsibility where a person knowingly aids or facilitates the commission of international crimes. Historical precedents, including the Nuremberg Industrialist Cases, demonstrate that corporate leaders may incur liability when industrial or technological support substantially contributes to unlawful conduct.

Perhaps the greatest challenge today is the emerging "responsibility gap." As military decisions increasingly result from interactions among algorithms, software engineers, intelligence analysts, and commanders, identifying legal responsibility becomes progressively more difficult. Unless international law develops clearer standards for AI-assisted warfare, technological innovation may ultimately diffuse accountability rather than strengthen it.

Ultimately, the defining legal question of the AI era may no longer be who pulled the trigger, but rather: Who designed the algorithm that guided the human hand toward the trigger?

The answer to that question may shape the next generation of international humanitarian law and international criminal justice. 

Morteza Abdi is the head of the Department of International Affairs Center for Lawyers, Official Experts and Family Counselors of the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Tehran Times.)