The recent escalation of tensions between Israel and Iran has raised questions about the legality of Israel’s attacks on Iranian military and nuclear sites. According to the United Nations Charter, military action is only justified as self-defense, and the key issue is whether Israel can justify its attacks as “anticipatory” self-defense.
Experts argue that Israel’s actions may not meet the criteria for self-defense. Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University, stated, “This is not a situation in which Israel is allegedly responding to an Iranian attack occurring now.” Milanovic also emphasized that there is little evidence Iran has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not provided clear evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. While IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi expressed concerns about Iran’s “rapid accumulation of highly-enriched uranium,” he emphasized that the agency has found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons production. Grossi stated, “We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon.”
Historical precedents suggest that “anticipatory self-defense” is a contentious justification for military action. In 1981, Israel attacked Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, invoking anticipatory self-defense, but the UN Security Council strongly condemned the attack as a violation of the UN Charter. Similarly, the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, justified as preemptive self-defense, was widely criticized.
Under international law, attacks on civilians, including scientists and media professionals, are prohibited. Milanovic noted that scientists who are civilians “cannot lawfully be made the object of an attack.” Hospitals and medical facilities also enjoy specific protection under international humanitarian law, and attacks on these facilities are considered serious violations.
The legality of Israel’s attacks on Iran remains a subject of debate among experts, with many arguing that the actions may not meet the criteria for self-defense under international law.