One of the big questions raised about Israel’s military strikes against Iran is as to whether or not they amounted to a breach of International Law and meant that Israel had crossed red lines. To answer that question, we have to consider whether or not Israel’s action amounted to self defence. This means considering whether or not the action was pre-emptive and whether preemptive action is permitted under the UN charter.
Article 51 of the UN Charter states that:
““Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.””[1]
This does not explicitly mention pre-emptive action at all. So, whether this is included is something that might be contestable. However, it is reasonable to assume that acting in self-defence should include the right to act before an enemy has landed the first blow, which may in modern warfare prove decisive.
However, there is usually a presumption that there must be an imminent threat. One country cannot attack another, simply because there is a theoretical possibility that they may become a threat one day in the future. That’s why, even though they went round the Security Council in the end, the coalition against Saddam Hussein prior to the Iraq war sought to rely on evidence suggesting that Iraq could very quickly launch weapons of mass destruction.
Some are arguing that Israel were not at imminent risk from Iran because the Iranians had not yet begun to build nuclear weapons. However, I think that is a red herring. Iran have been running separate programmes to develop ballistic missiles and to enrich uranium. This is important because both need to be in place to provide Iran with a nuclear threat. It makes sense for all kinds of reasons to keep the two programmes separate but it wouldn’t take much time to quickly bring them together to make an attack possible.
In any case, the question would become moot if Iran and Israel were already engaged in conflict as such a missile strike would no longer be deemed to be pre-emptive. I believe that Israel have a credible case here to argue that they have been engaged in conflict with Iran for some time. First of all, there have been attacks on Israel by Iranian proxies in Hamas, Hezbullah and the Houthis. Secondly, Iran and Israel engaged in direct fire on each other back in 2024.
As always, this comes with the disclaimer that I’m not, at this point, discussing the rights and wrongs of Israel regarding conflict. Rather, the question here is purely to do with the legality of Israel’s actions. It is my understanding that they fall within the expectations of International Law.
[1] Chapter VII: Article 51 — Charter of the United Nations — Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs — Codification Division Publications
Faithroots 