On Feb. 28, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes on Iran, targeting key military and infrastructure sites and killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Since then, the countries have continued to carry out thousands of strikes, killing an estimated 1,500 Iranian civilians and injuring thousands more. Alongside the ethical questions surrounding the conflict comes another pressing issue: Is this war legal?
The United Nations (UN) Charter, established in 1945 after World War II, prohibits countries from using force against another sovereign state unless the action is authorized by the UN Security Council or is carried out in self-defense. In the case of this conflict, neither justification is clearly established. The United States and Israel did not receive approval from the UN before launching their strikes, and while both governments have suggested that Iran posed a significant threat, mainly citing the possibility of obtaining nuclear weapons, it remains uncertain whether that threat met the legal standard required for self-defense.
The charter, in article 51, specifically states that self-defense is only applicable “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Nowhere in article 51 does it state that preemptive attacks are justified. Thus, many legal experts argue that, without clear evidence of an imminent attack, the strikes violate international law.
The debate also extends to domestic law within the United States. The Constitution states that Congress is the sole power that can declare war, and large-scale military action without congressional approval might be unconstitutional as well. As the conflict continues to escalate, the legal questions remain unresolved, as ultimately the legality of the war on Iran depends on interpretations of self-defense. However, this uncertainty has raised a lot of unease, as Paideia student Hattie Gegax ’27 says, “I think that it shows a disregard for the law and creates a tone of distrust.”
