Introduction
When the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran in Operations ‘Epic Fury’ and ‘Roaring Lion’ on February 28, 2026, critics both in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere charged that there was no imminent threat, questioning the underlying assumption of the military campaign.
The Guardian called the attacks an illegal war. Brookings analysts dismissed them as a “war of choice.” On March 17, 2026, the director of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, Joe Kent, posted his resignation on X and claimed that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” suggesting the United States entered the war due to Israeli pressure.
The choir of critics accusing Israel of conducting “an unlawful war” and of “dragging the U.S. into such war” was as inevitable as it was predictable.
The clearly partisan political motivating factors – principally the predictable and automatic reservation regarding any action with which Israel may be associated, but also a deep mistrust, aversion, and animosity towards President Trump – are so obvious and unsubstantive as to render such criticism and opposition as ungenuine and insincere.
This is further demonstrated by the continued hesitation of European and other Western countries to cooperate in what they still label an “unnecessary war,” despite it serving their essential interests.
UN Charter and International Law Violations
And thus, UN Secretary-General Guterres, accompanied by a squad of international-law scholars, anti-war activists, policymakers, media, and NGOs, felt duty-bound to voice predictable reservations regarding the joint U.S.-Israeli action against Iran, claiming that it violates the UN Charter provision against the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran.
The need to dress politically-generated, partisan criticism in the guise of international law renders it all the more cynical and shallow, while undermining the very international law they seek to protect.
To seriously expect the U.S. and Israel to await a prior armed attack, as called for in Article 51 of the Charter, before responding to an immediate and potentially nuclear threat, and to expect them to engage the UN Security Council and other diplomatic mechanisms, is indicative of the naive, short sighted, and shuttered mindset prevalent in the mind of the UN Secretary-General and the other critics.
Iranian Threats
One need only view the openly declared Iranian threats against the U.S. and threats to annihilate Israel, as well as Iran’s development of nuclear capabilities, in order to realize its threats. The actual examples of Iranian aggression by firing missiles against Israel and its active use of terror proxies, Hamas, Hizbullah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen, are ample examples of continuing Iranian aggression and terror.
Clearly, in light of the immediate danger posed by Iranian missile, nuclear, and ongoing terror threats, the application of the UN Charter provision was legally inappropriate in circumstances involving a nuclear and missile threat, as it did not adequately address or account for these specific security concerns.
Other Allegations
Furthermore, the curious and misguided allegations by inherently partisan sources are intended to suit the political motives of those making such claims that:
- The war is a “war of choice” rather than a valid prosecution of the customary international law right of self-defense.
- There was no Iranian “armed attack” or imminent threat.
- There was no real nuclear threat or risk, and Israel framed an existential/nuclear risk, accepted by the U.S., without independent justification.
- There was no “ticking clock.”
- There was no element of immediacy.
- Israel exercised intelligence manipulation intended to mislead the US by shaping and exaggerating intelligence.
These are all spurious allegations without factual or legal basis that deliberately ignore the immediacy and inherent danger of the Iranian threat.
- Crime of Aggression
The absurd allegation by European academic authorities and UN officials that this is a ‘supreme international crime of aggression’ is no less indicative of the narrow, one-sided and shuttered viewpoint that chooses to view aggression selectively without knowledge of the various accepted international law definitions of aggression, and without considering the sui-generis nature, imminent danger and immeasurable extent of the Iranian nuclear and terror threats.
- U.S. Constitutional Violation
The claim by domestic U.S. critics and policymakers that the administration’s action against Iran lacked congressional authorization ignores the fact that the Constitution indeed enables the administration to act in self-defense against perceived imminent threats and to protect U.S. troops and US allies from being attacked by Iran’s national security forces.
The claim that there was a “breach of good faith” by commencing the war during active U.S.-Iran negotiations is selective and naive inasmuch as it deliberately ignores the fact that Iran was in dire breach of any good faith criterion in negotiating, while at the same time continuing to complete its preparations for nuclear weaponization.
The concept of “good faith” or “bona fides” is a reciprocal concept binding on all parties. When Iran claims to negotiate while preparing to attack, and when Iran seeks to negotiate a termination of the war while at the same time ordering the Houthis in Yemen to barrage Israel with missiles, any claim of bona fides loses credibility.
- Violations of International Humanitarian Law
General allegations by humanitarian-law NGOs and critics against Israel and the U.S., claiming collective punishment, disproportionate civilian-infrastructure strikes, blockades, and siege tactics, appear to be off-the-cuff reactions based on a lack of accurate knowledge of the facts.
The targeting policies of both Israel and the U.S. are strictly in accordance with the principles of international humanitarian law, aimed at neutralizing and destroying legitimate military, tactical, and strategic targets that serve the Iranian war machine and that enable the Iranian Jihadist regime from furthering its aims.
- Iranian Illegality – Targeting of Civilians
This is in direct contrast to the targeting policies of Iran and its proxies, Hizbullah and the Houthis, whose deliberate and indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population and commercial centers in Israel and the Gulf states violate established principles of international humanitarian law, specifically the prohibitions against targeting civilians and civilian objects as a means of terror.
- Iranian Illegality – Use of Cluster Munitions
The declared use by Iran and its proxy Hizbullah of cluster weaponry against civilian concentrations in Israel and the Gulf states is a distinct violation of international law prohibitions of such weaponry, including the International Convention on Cluster Weapons.
- Iranian Illegality – Blocking of the Hormuz Strait
Blockage of navigation of the Hormoz strait by Iran constitutes a clear violation of the international law rights to unimpeded, innocent, and transit passage in international straits as set out in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The fact that the UN Secretary-General, as depository of that Convention, has not found cause to criticize Iran for violating the convention, and prefers to concentrate his criticism of Israel,
Conclusion
It is not unusual in today’s international realities for Israel, as a matter of course, to be blamed for acting illegally, no matter what it may do, or may not do. In fact, accusing Israel of acting illegally seems to be the fashionable thing to do.
The reasons, as illogical and hollow as they appear, are many and usually stem from the political, religious, or national orientation of the accuser. Rarely do they meet clear empirical criteria, so they cannot be relied upon as accurate judgments of true legality or illegality.
The popular assumption is that if Israel does anything, it must by definition be illegal. This presumed illegality is backed up and whitewashed by attempted justifications in terms of international law and practice.
When Israel reacted to the notoriously cruel and ruthless massacre of over a thousand of its citizens by Hamas terrorists on October 7, 2023, and the taking of hundreds of hostages, by entering the Gaza Strip in order to seek out and counter the terror threat and to prevent repeated acts of terror by Hamas, then Israel was, and continues to be accused of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population of Gaza.
Such presumed criminality is given international legitimacy by a number of questionable paragons of international humanitarian virtue, such as South Africa, backed by Iran and other states, who advance an accusation of genocide against Israel before the International Court of Justice.
Hence, the fashionable code-phrase and buzzword used in international parlance of Israel committing genocide becomes the norm.
And if such an accusation can so easily and readily be acceptable in the international community, then clearly, when Israel finds itself under existential threat from an Iranian Jihadist terror-supporting regime intent on eliminating its very existence, then any act by Israel and by the U.S. to preempt such very real, imminent, and dangerous threat from being implemented, through military action, is automatically labeled as unlawful.
The cynicism and hypocrisy of the critics of the war are as predictable as they are insincere.
