Not Preemptive Or Legal, Iran Strikes Blew Up International Law

(MENAFN- Asia Times) The joint US-Israeli strikes on Iran represent a further erosion of the international legal order. Under international law, these attacks are neither preemptive nor lawful.

Israel and the United States launched Operation Shield of Judah and Operation Epic Fury, respectively, while diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran were actively underway on Iran's nuclear program.

Just two days earlier, the most intense round of US-Iran talks concluded in Geneva, with both sides agreeing to continue. US President Donald Trump indicated he would give negotiators more time. Then came the bombs.

Israel said the strikes were“preventive”, meaning they were to prevent Iran from developing a capacity to be a threat. But preventive war has no legal basis under international law. The UN Security Council did not authorise any military action, meaning the sole lawful pathway for the use of force for self-defense was never pursued.

The illegality of the attack

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Preemptive self-defence, as we have argued previously, has extremely narrow prescriptions under the Caroline doctrine. It requires a threat to be“instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means.” No such conditions existed with Iran on February 28.

Central to the current crisis is that it was Trump who in 2018 ended the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had regional support for controlling Iran's nuclear program. The US director of national intelligence testified in March 2025 that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, an assessment that the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency affirmed.