The Trump administration is waging an illegal war on Iran, according to legal scholars and bipartisan lawmakers, who argue the military offensive lacks congressional approval and a valid legal premise. The Senate is set to vote on Wednesday on a motion to halt the conflict, which began on 28 February and has killed hundreds, including six US personnel, while expanding to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Israel and the Persian Gulf.
The administration has offered shifting justifications, at times describing a pre-emptive war to degrade Iran’s nuclear and offensive capabilities, and at other times claiming the US acted to protect American interests after Israel committed to launching its own offensive. President Trump said an Iranian nuclear threat justified the action, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated the US was compelled to strike because Israel was determined to act, and that Iran would retaliate against the US regardless.
Legal experts have challenged these rationales. Wells Dixon of the Center for Constitutional Rights said the stated objectives are military policy goals, not a legal basis for attack. Marko Milanovic of the University of Reading noted that using force requires a basis in self-defence, which was not present. Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer, argued the US could have restrained Israel instead of launching its own strikes, making the action unnecessary under international law.
Senators also questioned the legality. Mark Warner stated there was no imminent threat to the US, only to Israel, and equating the two sets a dangerous precedent. Tim Kaine said supporting Israel’s defence differs from affirmatively initiating war. The vote on Wednesday will test congressional support for halting the offensive.
