Legal Controversy Over the Legitimacy of Trump’s War Against Iran’s Sovereignty and Its Consequences
Tehran - BORNA - The Al Jazeera network wrote in a note that the war by the United States and the Zionist regime against Iran, carried out without obtaining authorization from the UN Security Council, led many international experts and jurists to warn of violations of the provisions of the UN Charter and the principle prohibiting the use of force against the sovereignty of states. Under the UN Charter, the use of military force against a country is permitted only in cases of legitimate self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council, but neither of these conditions was met in Trump’s action.
Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security advisor during the presidency of Barack Obama and a member of the negotiating team for the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, emphasized in an article in The New York Times that Trump’s decision to initiate war against Iran was taken individually, without specific authorization from the U.S. Congress and without preparing public opinion.
He described this action as an example of a “recurring pattern of personal use of military power by the president” and warned that such an approach could have dangerous and long-term consequences at the regional level and inside the United States.
Rhodes noted that Trump’s decision is a combination of “authoritarian tendencies” and “military adventurism” and could lead to a redefinition of the balance of power in the Middle East.
He stressed that targeting Iran’s leadership or the system’s infrastructure would not guarantee the country’s stability and could pave the way for internal conflicts, escalation of extremist armed group activities, and even the collapse of state structures, as well as large waves of migration and economic instability at the regional and global levels.
On the other hand, the news outlet Politico also reported in an analysis that Trump’s action has placed him in a more fragile legal position than ever before. The reason for this fragility is the absence of a clear and defensible legal basis for entering a new war.
The newspaper noted that the Trump administration’s only claim was that the United States was “removing imminent threats” from Iran, without presenting specific examples or evidence.
It added that Trump’s main arguments to justify military action refer to past incidents, including the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran from 1979 to 1981, the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, and the attack on the destroyer USS Cole in 2000—claims that indicate the lack of a valid legal basis for a preemptive attack.
Legal analysts have also emphasized that targeting high-ranking foreign officials, including Ali Khamenei, could be regarded as an unprecedented escalation in U.S. foreign policy and carry serious consequences within the framework of international law. Such an action could clearly conflict with the principle of non-use of force against the sovereignty of states and Iran’s sovereign rights.
Haroon Siddiqui, in an analysis on this matter, pointed to the contradiction in the U.S. narrative and recalled that Trump had previously claimed that “Iran’s nuclear program would be destroyed,” which weakens the argument that there was an imminent threat.
Regarding the position of the United Kingdom, which announced its participation in the framework of a “defensive action” to support regional allies, experts emphasize that although collective defense is lawful if the affected state requests assistance, the legitimacy of Britain’s action depends on the legality of the primary military operation, and in this case, the legal basis of the U.S. action itself is in doubt.
Al Jazeera wrote that although there are disagreements over details, a broad consensus has formed regarding the fragility of the legal basis of this attack and the necessity of a precise legal review. Experts warn that this approach could redefine the boundaries of the use of force in the international system and also raise important questions about the limits and responsibilities of the president in employing military force.
In sum, Trump’s war against Iran is not only controversial from the perspective of international law, but its political, humanitarian, and economic dimensions at the regional and global levels have created divisions and a redefinition of international rules and conduct, prompting public opinion and legal institutions around the world to engage in debate.
End Article