US-Israeli Military Strikes on Iran Challenge International Legal Framework
The recent joint military operations conducted by the United States and Israel against Iranian targets have sparked intense debate regarding their legality under international law. Operation Shield of Judah and Operation Epic Fury, launched while diplomatic negotiations between Washington and Tehran were actively progressing, represent a further erosion of the established international legal order.
The Legal Basis Questioned
Israel has characterized the strikes as "preventive" measures aimed at stopping Iran from developing threatening capabilities. However, international legal experts emphasize that preventive warfare lacks any legitimate foundation within existing international law frameworks. The United Nations Security Council did not authorize any military action, meaning the lawful pathway for self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter was never properly pursued.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any sovereign state. The narrow Caroline doctrine, which permits preemptive self-defense only when facing an "instant, overwhelming" threat that leaves "no choice of means," does not apply to the situation with Iran as it existed on February 28, 2026.
Regime Change as Unlawful Objective
Former US President Donald Trump explicitly stated that the attacks intended to end Iran's nuclear weapons program while simultaneously bringing about regime change. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu similarly declared the goal was to "remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran."
Forcible regime change directly violates the foundational principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention enshrined in the UN Charter. The deliberate targeting of Iran's supreme leader, president, and military chief of staff crosses a critical threshold that distinguishes legitimate military operations from acts of aggression.
Attacking heads of state is illegal under the New York Convention for compelling reasons of international stability. With the death of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the resulting power vacuum will likely increase hardship for ordinary Iranians, as evidenced by reports of an airstrike on an elementary school in Minab that killed at least 100 girls aged seven to twelve.
Diplomatic Deception and International Response
Launching military strikes during active diplomatic negotiations violates the principle of good faith outlined in Article 2(2) of the UN Charter. Iranian policymakers had previously accused the United States of bad faith following June 2025 strikes that disrupted scheduled talks, and Iran's Foreign Ministry denounced the February 28 attacks as striking during negotiations in clear violation of international law.
The international response has been mixed and revealing. Western leaders, including Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, have supported the strikes as necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, placing these nations in contradiction with basic principles of the liberal international order.
France, Germany, and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement urging Iran to negotiate while condemning Iranian retaliatory attacks, yet notably avoided direct commentary on the US-Israeli strikes. Russia and China have been more forthright, criticizing the actions and calling for an immediate end to military operations and a return to diplomatic negotiations.
Historical Context and Future Implications
Central to the current crisis is the historical context: it was the Trump administration that terminated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, an agreement that had enjoyed regional support for controlling Iran's nuclear program. US intelligence testified in March 2025 that Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, a position affirmed by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
US intelligence assessments indicated it would take approximately three years for Iran to build a nuclear weapon, and previous US-Israeli strikes had already set back the program by months. Despite this, Trump claimed Iran's nuclear program had been completely obliterated.
The aftermath of regime change requires meticulous planning, as demonstrated by historical examples including the return of slavery to Libya following Muammar Qaddafi's death and the rise of Islamic State after Saddam Hussein's removal in Iraq. Western allies have expressed concern that Washington lacks a coherent strategy for post-conflict reconstruction and government transition in Iran.
As Mexico's representative stated at the UN Security Council following recent US actions in Venezuela, the historical record of regime change shows it has consistently "exacerbated conflicts and weakened the social and political fabric of nations." According to analysis from The Atlantic, "complete chaos" is the likely outcome in Iran.
The international legal order now faces unprecedented challenges. When powerful states conduct illegal wars under the guise of prevention, weaponize diplomacy as operational cover, and openly pursue regime change objectives, the so-called "rules-based order" faces existential threats that could reshape global governance for generations.
