After the United States bombed Iran’s three nuclear facilities on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said its objective was a “stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror”.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this justification, saying:
The president authorised a precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defenze of our troops and our ally Israel.
Is this a legitimate justification for a state to launch an attack on another?
I believe, looking at the evidence, it is not.
Under the UN Charter, there are two ways in which a state can lawfully use force against another state:
・the UN Security Council authorizes force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security under Chapter 7
・the right of self defense when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51.
On the first point, there was no UN Security Council authorization for either Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and security. The security council has long been concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and adopted a series of resolutions related to it. However, none of those resolutions authorized the use of military force.
With regard to self defence, this right is activated if there is an armed attack against a nation. And there’s no evidence of any recent Iranian attacks on the US.
Alternet: Trump just broke the law — again
Reply
