International Dispute over Legality of Strikes

Many critics have declared that the US and Israeli military strikes on Iran represent illegal aggression. For example, Kamala Harris said,

"The American people do not want our sons and daughters to go into this unauthorised war of choice and I unequivocally oppose it."

In describing the current fighting as ’unauthorised’ and a ’war of choice’ she was stating that it is illegal. Those who agree with her cite three reasons:

• No UN Security Council authorisation was obtained.
• It was not prompted by an Iranian attack.
• Claims of imminent threat fall short of accepted legal standards.

Consequently, an AI-assisted search generated a summary comment that:

Scholars and UN officials nearly uniformly describe the operation as aggression, not lawful self-defence.’

The BBC’s Jeremy Bowen echoed these views in an article published on Saturday 28th February, in which he wrote:

’Israel used the word "pre-emptive" to justify its attack ... The evidence is that this is not a response to an imminent threat, which the word pre-emption implies. Instead, it is a war of choice ... It is also another blow to the tottering system of international law.’

However, Natasha Hausdorff, an expert on international law, points out that these claims of illegality are based upon a "totally incorrect framing" of the military action. Its critics are ignoring the fact that the conflict between Iran, Israel and the United States has been going on for decades. It is not a new conflict, but one in which the military forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran were developing new weapons.

...