Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, has condemned the US-Israeli military attack on Iran as an illegal act of aggression, comparing it to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Rwanda’s incursion into the Democratic Republic of Congo. Writing in a commentary, Roth argues that the attack violates the UN Charter, which permits military force only with Security Council authorisation or in self-defence against an actual or imminent armed attack.
Roth dismisses the justification of an “imminent threat” from Iran, noting that US President Donald Trump cited past attacks by Iran, none of which were ongoing or imminent. He describes the attack as a “war of choice” rather than necessity, pointing out that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cut short diplomatic efforts. Roth suggests both leaders faced domestic political pressures and were “all too eager to bomb Iran”.
The commentary notes that negotiations were ongoing before the attack, with Iran open to inspections and dilution of enriched uranium. The main sticking point appeared to be whether Iran could enrich uranium at all, despite its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Roth states that recent accounts indicated the US may have softened its absolute demand, but Trump and Netanyahu chose military action instead.
Roth also addresses Trump’s call for the Iranian people to overthrow their government, describing the regime as despicable but arguing that regime change does not justify the crime of aggression. He rejects any claim of humanitarian intervention, noting that war inherently involves killing and that the attack was not aimed at stopping ongoing or imminent mass slaughter. The international response has been cool, with Britain refusing to allow US bombers to use Diego Garcia, and France, Germany and Britain issuing a joint statement critical of Iran but not endorsing the invasion.
