The debate in the West over military intervention in Iran is often reduced to a seemingly simple question: Is it permitted under international law? The traditional interpretation of the United Nations Charter suggests that the use of force is generally allowed only in self-defense against an armed attack by another state and, in other circumstances, requires authorization from the UN Security Council. On paper, this framework appears straightforward, but it is increasingly difficult to reconcile with contemporary geopolitical realities. The Charter presupposes a functioning system of collective security in which states report measures of self-defense to the Security Council, which then acts effectively to restore international peace and security. In practice, however, this mechanism is structurally constrained in a multipolar international order, where veto powers frequently paralyze decision-making. Against this background, the narrow, legalistic approach reflects a model of conflict that no longer corresponds to the realities of modern warfare, making the question of legal justification for intervention far more complex than the traditional framework suggests.

The conflict involving Israel, the United States, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was not initiated by Israel or the United States in 2026; rather, it reflects decades of hostilities in which Iran has pursued its strategic objectives through proxy forces and other means. Only now have Israel and the United States formally invoked their right to self-defense in response to direct and indirect attacks linked to Iran and its affiliates. Those who argue that the current use of force is illegal often overlook nearly five decades of actions by Iran and its proxies and rely on an overly rigid and narrow interpretation of international law.

Examples of major incidents associated with Iranian support or direction include the 1979 US Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran; the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings; the 1984 US Embassy annex bombing in Beirut; the Lebanon hostage crisis (1982–1992); repeated missile and rocket attacks on US and coalition forces in Iraq and Syria during the 2000s and 2010s; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia; the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires; and the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, among others.

Against this historical background, the question arises whether the right of self-defense must be confined to interstate conflicts under an unduly restrictive reading of international law or whether such a reading constitutes a misinterpretation of the law.

The Scope of Self-Defense

Historically, the UN Charter, and the right of self-defense it encompasses, were formulated in the context of the Second World War, when states needed a legitimate mechanism to defend themselves against the aggression of other states. However, a literal and rigid reading of the text falls short of its spirit and purpose. This is evident from legal developments showing that international law must adapt to the geopolitical realities of each era to remain relevant. The following discussion illustrates this point.

First, it is widely recognized that the right of self-defense........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)