US EditionDebate Rages over Legality of Israel's Attack on Iran
ISRAEL AND IRAN, JUN 17 – Legal experts debate if Israel's pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear sites meet strict international self-defence criteria amid rising regional tensions and global calls for restraint.
- On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a major military operation targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and military leadership, prompting a UN Security Council emergency meeting.
- The operation followed claims that Iran posed a nuclear threat, though ongoing diplomatic negotiations and international monitoring efforts were still in place at the time.
- Legal experts widely agree that under international law, anticipatory self-defense requires an imminent threat and exhaustion of other options, conditions Israel's strike arguably did not meet.
- China condemned Israel's actions as illegal violations undermining regional stability and urged an immediate ceasefire to prevent further losses and escalation.
- The attack deepened regional tensions, sparked international debate over the limits of self-defense, and disrupted nuclear negotiations, with implications for future conflict resolution efforts.
30 Articles
30 Articles
Declaring an attack war as self-defense and thus extending international law to unrecognizability has tradition. A few uncomfortable examples.
EVIL In The Middle East
What else can one say about an activity that has a goal of killing people, or destroying objects that will kill people? Those goals are intended to target enemy fighters. If the person making the military decision orders their soldiers to target civilians, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, that person is […] The post EVIL In The Middle East appeared first on The Lid.
MAINTENANCE. Legal defense, defence anticipated or preemptive: the Iran-Israel conflict is also a war of words. Decryption with Celine de Roany, master of conferences in international law.
International humanitarian law sets out what is outlawed as war crimes. Nuclear facilities can also be legitimate military targets, says international lawyer Christoph Safferling – but only under certain conditions.
Coverage Details
Bias Distribution
- 39% of the sources lean Left, 39% of the sources lean Right
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
