37 Fall 2026 arvard Professor Roger Fisher has written that “Legitimacy and lawful authority are key components of political power.”1 In the context of the war against Iran, both Israel and the United States attempt to obtain support by emphasizing the legality of military activity according to international law. It is relevant therefore to examine the rules of international law on this issue. Israel and Iran The UN Charter declares that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force” against other States.2 The sole exceptions referred to in the Charter are if the UN Security Council authorizes the use of force, or if a Member State of the UN uses force in self-defense.3 Clearly the UN Security Council did not authorize Israel to attack Iran; Israel’s attack, therefore, would only have been lawful according to the Charter if it was acting in self-defense. There is academic controversy as to what constitutes an “armed attack” justifying self-defense. There is near consensus that there is no need for a State to wait until the enemy bombs or attacks a target with rockets. International law is not a suicide pact. As in private law, individuals do not have to wait before responding until they are shot at. It is legitimate for individuals to take action when a loaded rifle is aimed at them. Consequently, it is accepted that a State can exercise the right of self-defense when there is an imminent threat. The requirement is that the potential attacker both intends to carry out the attack and has taken concrete steps toward implementing it. Determining exactly when these two elements crystallize into an “imminent attack” is often a matter of debate. Israel’s legal position is that Iran was the aggressor, and Israel was acting in self-defense. Once an armed conflict begins, the parties to the conflict are entitled to take military actions against each other, subject to the laws of war, without the need to prove self-defense. When Israel attacked Iran in April 2024 it was already in an armed conflict with Iran and, hence the issue of self-defense was no longer relevant. Iran had declared that it intended to destroy Israel. There had been direct Iranian missile attacks against Israel and attacks by Iran proxy forces, Hamas from Gaza, Hezbollah from Lebanon and Houthis from Yemen. These proxy forces were armed and financed by Iran and acted under the direct orders of the Iranian Republican Guard. The attacks against Israel by these proxy forces were part of a deliberate Iranian policy to surround Israel with “a ring of fire”; hostile forces that would attack Israel but leave Iranian territory beyond the battle scene. The recognized legitimacy of Israel’s actions against Iran is indicated by there being very little international criticism of Israel’s action, as compared to the situation in Gaza and the U.S. attack against Iran. Israel could also have claimed the controversial right of acting in preemptive or anticipatory self-defense against Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel did not raise this issue. Preemptive self-defense is identified as a situation in which a State uses force to prevent a potential enemy from being able to attack, before an actual attack has taken place, or is imminent. The United States and, in the past, the United Kingdom, claim that preemptive self-defense is legitimate if taken to prevent a potential enemy from obtaining nuclear weapons. The reasoning is that such action must be taken before the potential enemy has obtained nuclear weapons or it then becomes too late. The question The Legality of Israel and U.S. Attacks Against Iran Robbie Sabel 1. Roger Fisher, INTERNATIONAL CRISES AND THE ROLE OF LAW: POINTS OF CHOICE 12 (1978). 2. Article 2 (4) UN Charter. 3. Article 51 UN Charter. H
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=