Israel’s Strikes on Iran: Legal Under International Law?

Israel’s Strikes on Iran: Legal Under International Law?

PAHARI BARUAH

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched unprecedented military strikes on Iran, targeting nuclear facilities and assassinating senior military and scientific figures.

Iran retaliated swiftly, firing over 370 ballistic missiles at Israeli cities, including Haifa and Rehovot, killing at least 24 and wounding over 500.

The escalating conflict, the most severe in West Asia since the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, has plunged the region into crisis and raised a pressing question: Are Israel’s actions legal under international law?

The Legal Framework

The cornerstone of international law on the use of force is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits states from using force against another’s territorial integrity, except in narrowly defined cases. One such exception is self-defense under Article 51, which permits force “if an armed attack occurs,” provided it adheres to principles of necessity and proportionality.

According to international law scholar Marko Milanovic, the legality of Israel’s strikes hinges on whether they qualify as self-defense. If self-defense requires an actual armed attack, Israel’s actions appear unlawful, as no attack from Iran or its proxies was underway at the time of the strikes.

RelatedPosts

Asha Bhosle Forever: Legendary Singer’s Iconic Life, Timeless Hits & Unforgettable Legacy

April 12, 2026

Climate Anxiety Crisis: How Climate Change is Destroying Young People’s Mental Health Worldwide

April 12, 2026

UKRAINE: “I put my life on hold”- the story of a woman from Berdiansk who fled the occupation

April 11, 2026

Israel justifies its actions as pre-emptive self-defense, arguing that Iran’s advancing nuclear program poses an existential threat. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cited Iran’s alleged proximity to nuclear weapons capability and past rhetoric from Iranian leaders vowing to destroy Israel. Yet, pre-emptive self-defense-acting against an attack that has not yet occurred-is deeply contentious in international law.

The Case for Pre-emptive Self-Defense

The concept of pre-emptive, or anticipatory, self-defense stems from the 1837 Caroline incident, where British forces attacked an American ship supplying Canadian rebels. The resulting Caroline doctrine stipulates that pre-emptive force is permissible only when the necessity is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation,” and the response is proportionate.

Legal scholars like Rosalyn Higgins argue that requiring states to wait for an attack to materialize before acting could be impractical, particularly in the face of catastrophic threats like nuclear weapons.

However, the doctrine’s application depends on how “imminence” is defined. A restrictive interpretation, favored by many legal experts, holds that an attack must be temporally proximate-about to occur. A broader view, where an attack might happen in the distant future, risks undermining the UN Charter’s prohibition on force.

Milanovic warns that an expansive definition of imminence could grant powerful states a license for unilateral aggression based on mere speculation, contradicting the Caroline doctrine’s strict limits.

Applying the restrictive standard, Israel’s case falters. No evidence suggests Iran was poised to launch an imminent attack on June 13. Claims that Iran’s nuclear program could eventually threaten Israel rely on a broader, speculative interpretation of imminence, unsupported by international law. Absent an imminent threat, Israel’s strikes could be deemed aggression-a war crime under international law.

Escalation and Consequences

The strikes have not only failed to dismantle Iran’s dispersed nuclear facilities but have also triggered a dangerous escalation spiral. Iran’s missile barrages have targeted Israeli civilian and industrial sites, while Israel continues to strike Iranian military and intelligence leadership, with Netanyahu hinting at regime change as a goal. This tit-for-tat dynamic risks drawing in global powers, particularly the United States, Israel’s primary ally, and Russia, an Iranian partner.

The timing of the attack-days before a scheduled sixth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks-has effectively derailed diplomacy. U.S. President Donald Trump, who has expressed openness to a deal, faces a deadlock as Iran refuses to abandon its enrichment program entirely. A prolonged conflict could see Iran retaliate against U.S. assets in the Persian Gulf or disrupt global oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, triggering an economic catastrophe.

The Role of International Law

Critics may argue that international law is toothless, given its failure to prevent wars despite the UN Charter’s adoption in 1945. Yet, it remains the primary framework for assessing state conduct and holding power accountable. Israel’s actions, if deemed unlawful, underscore the need for global powers to enforce legal norms rather than enable impunity.

The international community faces an urgent task: securing a ceasefire to halt the escalation. The U.S. and Russia, leveraging their influence over Israel and Iran, respectively, must prioritize mediation. A return to nuclear negotiations could address Israel’s security concerns without further bloodshed. If President Trump seeks to cement a legacy of peace, as he claims, now is the moment to act.

As West Asia teeters on the brink, the world watches not only the conflict’s human toll but also the integrity of the international legal order. Without decisive action, both may be irreparably harmed.

21-06-2025

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com(For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.