The fact that senior Iranian leadership figures were targeted in the initial strikes raises additional legal concerns. Outside active battlefield conditions, assassinating another state’s political leadership is widely considered a violation of international law and dThe military campaign launched by the United States and Israel against the sovereign state of Iran in 2026 has been widely criticized by legal scholars and international organizations as violating the foundations of modern international law. At the center of the debate is the prohibition on aggressive war contained in the United Nations Charter, the core legal framework governing relations between states. The UN Charter, adopted after World War II, prohibits countries from using military force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence. Article 2(4) is explicit: states must refrain from the threat or use of force except in two narrow circumstances. In the case of the U.S.–Israeli attacks on Iran, neither condition appears to have been met. No resolution authorizing force was passed by the United Nations Security Council, and experts note that Iran had not launched an armed attack on the United States or Israel immediately prior to the strikes. Because of this, many legal scholars argue the campaign constitutes a “use of force” in violation of the UN Charter, the cornerstone rule of the modern international legal order.
Supporters of the war have argued that Iran’s missile and nuclear programs justified a preventive attack. However, international law sets a very high threshold for anticipatory self-defense. Under the classic Caroline doctrine, the threat must be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means.” Legal experts say the evidence of such imminence has not been demonstrated in this case. The attacks have therefore been characterized by scholars as preventive rather than defensive, which international law generally considers unlawful. Another controversial element is that officials in Washington and Tel Aviv have framed the campaign in terms of weakening or replacing Iran’s ruling system. However, forcible régime change violates the principle of state sovereignty, a core rule of international relations. International law does not allow states to remove governments of other states through military force, even if those governments are considered authoritarian or destabilizing diplomatic immunity norms. Beyond the legality of starting the war (jus ad bellum), there are concerns about the conduct of hostilities (international humanitarian law). Reports of civilian casualties and attacks on civilian infrastructure could potentially violate rules requiring distinction between military and civilian targets and proportionality in attacks. The war has triggered intense global debate and warnings that it has weakened the international legal system designed to prevent aggressive wars. This kind of action has been true of the United States since the global order established by the United States itself, after WW11, and later the Israelis, who have committed all kinds of genocides against its neighbors with the help and protection of the United States with impunity.
Critics argue that if powerful states bypass the UN framework and launch unilateral military campaigns, it risks returning the world to a system where military force becomes a routine tool of foreign policy. In my opinion, that ship has sailed.
At the same time, the conflict has rapidly escalated militarily, with expanding strikes and retaliation across the region, raising fears of a wider regional war.
✅ In summary:
Many international law experts argue that the U.S. – Israeli war against Iran is illegal because it lacks UN authorization, does not meet the legal standard for self-defense, and involves actions—such as preventive war and potential régime change—that conflict with the foundational principles of the post-World War II international legal order.
The Rules-Based Order that emanated from the worldwide conflagration of WW11 is no more. To the extent it does exist, it is a jungle iteration of might makes right. (MB)
