Dr. Emre Şenbabaoğlu, (/International Law Expert) : On February 28, 2026, the Iran War began with the attacks launched by the US and Israel against Iran. Looking at the 250-year history of the US, founded in 1776, we see that 233 of those years were spent at war. In other words, the United States has lived in peace for only 17 years. These wars, an inseparable part of the United States’ colonial and imperialist history, have been criticized as “endless wars” since the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the United States has become a war machine engaged in almost uninterrupted warfare. Therefore, the U.S. attack on Iran alongside Israel is consistent with the U.S. military history and is not surprising.
The United Nations Charter signed in 1945 proved insufficient in preventing the wars launched and military interventions carried out by the United States in violation of international law. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the relevant Charter unequivocally and comprehensively prohibits the use of military force between states. There are only two exceptions to this: the right to legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and an authorization by the UN Security Council to use military force. In this respect, the relevant articles of the UN Charter represented an extremely revolutionary and progressive step, as they comprehensively prohibited the use of military force in human history and did not allow for the use of military force except in exceptional circumstances.
Unfortunately, the current international order established in 1945 has failed to prevent the United States from resorting to war and military intervention as a foreign policy tool due to the reality of imperialism. The United States was involved in the Korean War from 1950 to 1953, the Vietnam War from 1955 to 1975, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the Afghanistan War from 2001 to 2021, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2011 intervention in Libya, and the 2014 intervention in Syria, systematically violating international law.
THE US AND ISRAEL ARE CLEARLY VIOLATING INTERNATIONAL LAW
When we examine the attacks launched by the US and Israel against Iran on February 28, 2026 from the perspective of international law, we see that they clearly violate the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. The US and Israel cannot justify their attacks against Iran based on the right to individual or collective self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter because current positive international law requires the existence of an actual (ongoing or completed) armed attack for the right of self-defense to apply. Iran did not carry out any armed attack against these two countries in the period immediately preceding the attacks against its own country. Furthermore, since there is no UN Security Council decision authorizing the use of force against Iran, the US has no tangible legal justification.
The US and Israel have justified their attacks against Iran based on theories of “preventative self-defense.” Among these theories, there are two distinct theories: “anticipatory self-defense” and “pre-emptive self-defense,” which claim that force can be used before an armed attack commences and have different temporal thresholds. US President Donald Trump explained his justification for attacking Iran in a video released on February 28, 2026. He based this justification on controversial theories of legitimate defense in international law.
In his speech, Trump said, Iran “attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long-range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had and actually were armed with nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message.” Thus, the U.S. justified its action by citing the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them to attack the U.S. and its allies, and announced that it would launch an operation against Iran to prevent it from threatening its core national security interests.
Even if we assume that the US and Israel rely on the theory of “anticipatory self-defense” against an imminent threat of armed attack by Iran, their attacks against Iran are clearly in violation of international law. First, there was no imminent threat of armed attack by Iran against the US and Israel. It would be illogical to claim that Iran was about to attack the US and Israel with a nuclear weapon that it does not possess. The second point is that Iran has acquired the capability to carry out an armed attack and has irreversibly planned to carry out the attack at some point in the future. We have no concrete information that Iran intends to use nuclear weapons against Israel after acquiring them. The US and Israel have not made any statements to enlighten the international community on this matter.
However, although the US-Iran negotiations mediated by Oman in February 2026 did not reach a definitive conclusion, significant progress was made, and Iran committed not to pursue nuclear weapons. Attacking Iran while these negotiations were ongoing was not the last resort for the US and Israel to eliminate the perceived threat. Considering both situations, we can see that there is no imminent threat of an armed attack from Iran against the US and Israel.
Interestingly, the pretexts for attack on Iran by the US and Israel resemble claims of pre-emptive self-defense advanced by the US to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time, US officials, notably George W. Bush and Colin Powell, claimed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, was actively producing them, and could give these weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, stating that waiting to eliminate this threat was risky. Although not officially, the US relied on this pre-emptive self-defense theory to legitimize the invasion of Iraq, but it later emerged that Iraq did not possess such
weapons. Now, the US is repeating the same baseless allegations regarding Iran, but the world no longer believes the lies about Iran’s “production of nuclear weapons” and “attacks with nuclear weapons” put forward by the US and Israel, and it opposes the illegal attacks against Iran.
In this context, we can say that US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have committed the crime of aggression and therefore bear individual criminal responsibility, but it is not possible for these two individuals to be tried by the International Criminal Court (ICC). Since these countries, including Iran, are not parties to the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court generally lacks jurisdiction over them. In the absence of effective legal accountability mechanisms under international law, the actions of the leaders of the US and Israel against a sovereign state will likely remain subject primarily to historical and moral evaluation and to the judgment of international public conscience.
A prominent historical example is the Russell Tribunal, established in 1966 by the British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell and chaired by Jean-Paul Sartre. The tribunal was created to examine allegations of war crimes committed by the United States during the Vietnam War and to bring these accusations before international public opinion. Although it lacked any formal legal authority, it exerted considerable influence on global public debate and sought to mobilize international moral responsibility. Today, it is possible to undertake a similar initiative and expose the war crimes and crimes of aggression committed by the US and Israel in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran, and to reveal those responsible for these crimes.
IRAN IS EXERCISING ITS RIGHT OF LEGITIMATE SELF-DEFENSE : The US and Israel carried out illegal air strikes on the Iranian cities of Tehran, Isfahan, Qom, Karaj, and Kermanshah under the code names Operation Epic Fury and Operation Roaring Lion. In response, Iran invoked its right of self-defence under Article 51 ofthe UN Charter and launched ballistic missiles and drones against US military installations and facilities in Israel, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Although mainstream media have highlighted Iran’s attacks in an attempt to portray Iran as the aggressor, Iran’s acts are aimed at
protecting its territorial integrity and political independence. Under international law, a state that is the victim of an armed attack may respond in self-defence by targeting military objectives that facilitate or contribute to the attack, provided that the principles of necessity and proportionality are respected. However, Iran’s strikes against US military bases located in the Gulf states have raised significant legal questions regarding the permissibility of such actions under international law.
In the armed conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, states that should remain neutral—such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait—are expected to exercise due diligence to prevent violations of their neutrality. However, states hosting US military bases appear to have taken little or no action to prevent US or Israeli military operations launched from their territory. By allowing their territory to be used for such operations, these states may be regarded as facilitating or supporting military actions against Iran, thereby risking the loss of their neutral status.
In particular, if military attacks against Iran are in fact launched from these bases, such installations could potentially become lawful military objectives under the law of self-defence. From this perspective, the legality of Iranian strikes against such facilities would depend not only on the requirements of necessity and proproportionality, but also on whether the host states fulfilled their obligations under the law of neutrality. Had these states attempted to prevent the use of their territory for military operations and nevertheless been targeted by Iranian attacks, the legal assessment of Iran’s actions could be significantly different.
CONCLUSION: THE NUCLEAR HYPOCRISY AND WAR CRIMES OF IMPERIALISM :
Since 1970, Iran has adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), submitting to IAEA inspections and refraining from developing nuclear arms. In contrast, he greatest contradiction and hypocrisy, however, is that Israel, which is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, possesses nuclear weapons, and has been attacking countries in West Asia since 1948, accusing Iran, which is trying to comply with international law as much as possible, of producing nuclear weapons and threatening to attack with non-existent nuclear weapons.
The Trump regime, which seeks to annex Greenland and attacked Venezuela to kidnap Maduro, and the Netanyahu regime, which committed genocide in Gaza, have ensured that the US and Israel have become global rogue states with their illegal actions in recent years. The assassination of Iran’s religious leader Ali Khamenei by the US and Israel on the first day of the offensive war against Iran, and the massacre of at least 165 children by attacking a primary school in Minab, demonstrate that these actions not only violate international law but also constitute state terrorism. The US and Israel have become countries that seriously threaten international peace and security. Iran’s victory in this war will both strengthen its territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty and ensure that West Asia becomes a safer region. Such an outcome will roll back imperialism and accelerate the rise of the Global South countries.
Israel, not a party to the NPT, possesses nuclear weapons and has carried out repeated military operations in West Asia since 1948, while accusing Iran of pursuing non-existent nuclear programs. The greatest contradiction and hypocrisy, however, is that Israel, which is not a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, possesses nuclear weapons, and has been attacking countries in West Asia since 1948, accusing Iran, which is trying to comply with international law as much as possible, of producing nuclear weapons and threatening to attack with non-existent nuclear weapons.
The Trump regime, which seeks to annex Greenland and recently attacked Venezuela to kidnap Maduro, and the Netanyahu regime, which committed genocide in Gaza, have ensured that the US and Israel have become global rogue states with their war of aggression against Iran. The assassination of Iran’s religious leader Ali Khamenei by the US and Israel on the first day of their aggression against Iran, and the massacre of at least 165 children by attacking a primary school in Minab, demonstrate that these actions not only violate international law but also reinforce the claim that the US and Israel have become global rogue states. Indeed, the US and Israel have become countries that seriously threaten international peace and security. Iran’s victory in this war will both strengthen its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence, and ensure that West Asia becomes a safer region. Such an outcome will roll back imperialism and accelerate the rise of the Global South countries.