78 No. 76 JUSTICE attack on the Soroka Hospital on June 19, 2025, the Iranian Foreign Minister posted that the regime had ‘accurately eliminated’ an IDF military base, with the ‘blast wave’ causing ‘superficial damage’ to the Soroka ‘military’ hospital, ‘mainly used to treat Israeli soldiers.’50 In fact, the Iranian missile directly struck the Soroka Hospital, which is a university hospital and the third largest medical facility in Israel, and which, as the main hospital in southern Israel, provides services to all persons living or situated in a geographical area comprising 60% of Israel’s territory. The map that the Iranian foreign minister posted allegedly showing the hospital’s short distance from IDF bases was fabricated and demonstrably false. The tragic results of these attacks would have been substantially worse had Israel not invested so significantly in active defense systems and a substantial civil defense apparatus, had international allies not assisted Israel actively with defense, and had Israel not undertaken successful operations against much of Iran’s missile launching capabilities and stockpiles during the Operation. 5. The applicability of the conditions to use force under jus ad bellum As mentioned above, since the Operation took place in the context of an ongoing armed conflict between Israel and Iran (commenced by Iran’s aggression against Israel), it does not necessitate an analysis of the conditions for the initial resort to the use of force in self-defense by Israel under the international law governing the use of force (jus ad bellum). These conditions govern only the initial phase in which force is used as part of an armed conflict, and need not be continuously assessed throughout the entire duration of the armed conflict. The controlling legal framework in the latter situation is the law of armed conflict. Nonetheless, even if one were to apply jus ad bellum conditions to Israel’s actions, irrespective of the existence of a prior ongoing armed conflict between the States, such conditions would be met, as Israel would have had a legitimate and inherent right to use force to defend itself against Iran, and Israel’s actions fully conformed to the customary requirements of necessity and proportionality for the lawful exercise of the right to self-defense. Israel’s actions were necessary to neutralize the imminent and existential threat posed by the Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons program. As detailed above, the Operation was not an act of ‘preventive self-defense’ and it was not a response solely to the imminent acquisition of nuclear weapon capabilities by a hostile State. Rather, it was aimed to stop the regime – that has persistently and publicly stated its intention to eradicate Israel, and that has constantly translated such intentions into actual military plans and attacks – from completing the short distance to obtaining and deploying these weapons of mass destruction, as part of its program to annihilate Israel, in the context of the ongoing armed conflict and considering the circumstances described in this document.51 The Operation was launched when the threat was imminent, due to the regime’s rapid acceleration of all elements of the nuclear weapons program, which brought the regime very close to being able to assemble nuclear weapons, and at a point in time within the last window of opportunity to stop the regime from doing so. The Operation was initiated as a measure of last resort, when it became clear that all reasonable non-forcible alternatives had been exhausted and proved ineffective.52 50. Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi), X (formerly Twitter) (June 19, 2025, 4:02 PM (EEST)), https://x.com/araghchi/ status/1935684685666963780. 51. Letter from the Acting Representative of the United States to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2025/426 (June 27, 2025): ‘Based on the regime’s lengthy record of internal and external atrocities and depredations, there is no basis to believe that its claims of peaceful nuclear intentions are truthful, and it would be catastrophically dangerous to assume that a nuclear device in its hands would be left unused.’ 52. Letter from the Acting Representative of the United States to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2025/426 (June 27, 2025): ‘The strikes taken on June 22 occurred because peaceful measures were exhausted. In recent weeks and months, and as it has for well over a quarter century, the United States made every effort to secure a diplomatic resolution ensuring peace, prosperity, and security for all States in the region; to prevent a dangerous spiral of nuclear proliferation and instability, such a resolution must include ending the Islamic Republic of Iran’s potential development of a nuclear weapon. However, Iran refused to negotiate in good faith or to cease enriching uranium beyond the threshold needed for peaceful, civilian power generation.’
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=