In capital cities around the world we are hearing a familiar chorus: The war against Iran is illegal.

International law experts cite the United Nations Charter, arguing that the use of force without explicit authorization violates Article 2(4), which prohibits aggression between states. Others warn of the absence of clear “imminent threats.” And most in the United States use Operation Epic Fury as a political battering ram towards a (already) maligned US President.

Fine. Let’s assume—for the sake of argument—that they’re right.

Now let’s ask a more important question:

What if the “illegal” action is the only one preventing a far greater collapse of global order?

The Myth of Legal Clarity

The critics’ argument rests on a “comforting” premise: that international law is clear, enforceable, and consistently applied.

However, the stone cold truth is that it isn’t.

International law is not a functioning judicial system—it is a negotiated framework shaped by power, interpretation, and precedent. Another way of looking at it is that legality in international affairs can often be determined after the fact—by outcomes, not intentions.

Iran Is Not a Neutral Actor

The debate in Western capitals treats Iran like a conventional state wrongfully attacked. However, the truth is that it isn’t.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has spent decades building a shadow empire focused on financing militias across Iraq and Syria; Arming and directing proxies in Yemen; Supporting Hamas, and embedding itself politically and militarily in Lebanon.

This is not influence. This is systemic global destabilization by design.

Sanctions have already demonstrated Iran’s impact both positively and negatively.  When constrained, Iran’s economy contracts, its reach narrows, and its ability to project power weakens. Now consider what happens when that system is not just sanctioned—but structurally degraded.

Lebanon: The Case Study Everyone Ignores

If you want to understand what........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)