Justifiable though the February 28 US-Israeli pre-emptive strike on Iran may have been on moral, humanitarian, strategic and political grounds, it was arguably not so strong in terms of international law. France has criticized it as illegal, while Spain has explicitly declared it a breach of that law. 

Which international law is the action presumed to violate? 

The UN Charter, binding on all member states, is generally regarded as the central component of international law. Article 2(4) bars a state from using force “against the territorial integrity or political independence” of another state, but elsewhere, the charter specifies two accepted routes to its legal application: Security Council authorization, and self-defense.

The US-Israel strike did not receive Security Council authorization, and self-defense under Article 51 is permitted only “if an armed attack occurs.”

When the US and Israel struck, therefore, Iranian strategists could have reasoned that their two great enemies had breached international law and laid themselves open to universal condemnation in the UN and in the court of world opinion. 

 But blinded by their longstanding doctrine of regarding US forward bases and regional hosts as part of the hostile “system,” they ignored the political potential of the situation. They sanctioned the launching of missiles and drones at Israel and at US bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Inevitably, some hit civilian areas. 

Iranian officials framed this onslaught as a “legitimate right and duty” of selfdefense and revenge. They explicitly declared “all US resources in the........

© Eurasia Review