Legal Experts Condemn Trump's Unauthorised War on Iran as Unlawful
Legal scholars and bipartisan lawmakers have declared that the Trump administration is conducting an illegal war against Iran, flouting both the United States Constitution and international armed conflict laws. The Senate is set to vote on Wednesday to halt Donald Trump's military offensive, initiated on 28 February, which has resulted in hundreds of casualties, including six US personnel, and expanded across Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Israel, and the Persian Gulf.
Shifting Explanations for Military Action
The Trump administration has provided inconsistent rationales for launching attacks on Iran. At times, it has described a pre-emptive war aimed at degrading Iran's offensive and nuclear capabilities, while on other occasions, it has asserted that Iran was unwilling to renounce nuclear ambitions or that the US joined to protect American interests after Israel committed to its own offensive. In his first public remarks from Washington, President Trump stated, "An Iranian regime armed with long-range missiles and nuclear weapons would be a dire threat to every American. We cannot allow a nation that raises terrorist armies to possess such weapons." However, he has not outlined a clear timeline for achieving these broader wartime objectives, including eliminating threats from the Iranian regime and its regional proxies.
Legal Challenges and Expert Analysis
Several legal experts have contested the administration's justifications. Wells Dixon, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, remarked, "Those are military policy objectives. They are not a legal basis to launch an armed attack against another country." Marko Milanovic, a professor of International Law at the University of Reading, acknowledged Iran may pose a threat but emphasised that using force requires a basis in self-defence, which he argues is absent here. The administration has previously highlighted successes against Iran's nuclear facilities, yet Trump revived concerns in his State of the Union address, claiming Iran was developing missiles to reach the US, though no public evidence has been provided.
Congressional and Diplomatic Perspectives
Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, offered a differing explanation, suggesting the White House acted because Israel was determined to strike, and any Israeli action might provoke an attack on American forces. He told lawmakers, "It was abundantly clear that if Iran came under attack by anyone – the United States or Israel or anyone – they were going to respond, and respond against the United States." However, lawmakers like Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chair of the Senate intelligence committee, countered, "There was no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel. If we equate a threat to Israel as the equivalent of an imminent threat to the United States, then we are in uncharted territory." Senator Tim Kaine added that defending Israel differs from initiating war, stating, "We shouldn't be waging an affirmative war on behalf of any nation in the world, no matter how close we are."
Constitutional and War Powers Concerns
Following the Vietnam War, US constitutional provisions require the president to consult Congress before committing troops to hostilities. Last week, Rubio only briefed the Gang of Eight about plans to attack Iran, leading Kaine to criticise, "Their pattern, thus far, seems to be to take action, and then give [us] a briefing afterwards. They're trying to consign Congress to the role of a spectator, but that's not the role that Article 1 assigns to us." Dixon noted that while there is some flexibility, the president must notify Congress within 48 hours, and the War Powers Act mandates troop withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorises the operation. The White House submitted a War Powers report on Monday night.
Potential Impact of Congressional Vote
This week's war powers vote could influence Trump's military actions against Iran, even if it lacks support to override a veto. Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, said, "I think it can be an important political signal if there's sufficient bipartisan support." Kaine referenced past votes that deterred aggression, such as when Trump scrapped strikes on Venezuela after congressional action, highlighting that "The mere fact of the vote, even if it's unsuccessful, can have an impact."
