Connect with us

RSS

The US Attack on Iran Was Legal

A satellite image shows airstrike craters over the underground centrifuge halls of the Natanz Enrichment Facility, following US airstrikes amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Natanz County, Iran, June 22, 2025. Photo: Maxar Technologies/Handout via REUTERS

After June 21, when the US bombed critical nuclear sites in Iran, some members of Congress called the mission illegal. It appears the hostilities have ended for now. But the legality of “Operation Midnight Hammer” is still debated.

The question boils down to three issues: Was the US entitled under international law to enter the war? Did President Trump have authority under US law to order the use of military force? And did the undertaking comply with the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirement to protect nuclear facilities?

When a US ally is subject to an armed attack or “imminent” armed attack, the US may lawfully assist the ally’s defense. The authority for the intervention is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which guarantees “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.” The multinational military incursions in Kuwait in 1991 and Afghanistan in 2001 were considered valid acts of collective self-defense.

Israel suffered two forms of Iranian armed attack. Iran orchestrated armed attacks on Israelis for decades through terrorist proxy groups based in territories surrounding Israel. And Iran directly attacked Israel with two waves of missiles and drones in 2024. Meanwhile, Iran posed an imminent threat of attack because it was becoming a nuclear threshold state while obsessively threatening to annihilate Israel.

Iran observers are unsure how close the regime came to nuclear weaponization. The bomb-making task requires highly enriched uranium, a triggering device, and a delivery vehicle such as a ballistic missile. On April 17, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi warned that Iran had all the weaponizing “puzzle pieces” and was “not far” from putting them together.

Two months later the IAEA reported that Iran had illegally stockpiled over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium, enough to make several nuclear bombs. Estimates on the remaining time needed to complete the lethal puzzle ranged from months to a year.

Some critics of the American-Israeli collective self-defense welcomed the erasure of Iran’s nuclear facilities but insisted President Trump lacked authority to order the operation without a Congressional declaration of war under Article I of the Constitution. The executive and legislative branches of the US government have long debated the Constitutional power to declare war, and the courts have never resolved the standoff.

A 2016 Department of Justice report formalized the executive branch position on the Constitutional dispute. It defines “war” for the purposes of Article I as a prolonged and substantial military engagement. If there’s no war, there’s no need for a declaration of war. For example, the DOJ opined that a two-week air campaign involving 2,300 combat missions, and an air campaign involving over 600 missiles and precision-guided munitions, did not amount to wars.

Under the DOJ framework, the June 21 assault on Iran’s nuclear program was certainly not a war. The counterproliferation scheme involved just 75 precision guided weapons in a one-day surgical strike. Seven US Air Force B-2 stealth bombers in a “package” of 125 aircraft dropped less than 20 bombs on two nuclear sites, and a US submarine fired dozens of Tomahawk missiles at a third nuclear site. The pilots spent only two and a half hours in Iranian airspace.

Members of Congress who raised the Constitutional challenge also claim that the president violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (WPR). Under the WPR, the president may commit armed forces to “hostilities” only if there is a Congressional “declaration of war,” a “specific statutory authorization,” or a “national emergency” created by an attack on the US or its armed forces. Once the military action starts, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours and must stop the action within 60 days unless Congress gives its approval.

Presidents of both parties have repeatedly ignored the three WPR prerequisites to the use of military force. Congressional acquiescence was treated as consent. In the tacit understanding, a president may initiate armed force if it is more surgical than “war” as defined by the DOJ framework and it serves “important national interests.” Consistent with that policy, President Trump described the June 21 action as “a precision strike” that served “vital United States interests.” The vital US interest was the same one emphasized by every US president since 2003, when the IAEA first disclosed Iran’s clandestine plan to develop nuclear weapons. President Trump said the violently anti-Western regime must never acquire a nuclear bomb.

Assuming the US raid in Iran was validly authorized, the only remaining question is whether it was validly implemented. IAEA standards prohibit attacks on nuclear facilities “devoted to peaceful purposes.” Director General Grossi stressed this point in his June 13 Statement on the Situation in Iran, while calling for a diplomatic solution to the Israel-Iran conflict.

Significantly, the Statement did not say Iran’s nuclear facilities were peaceful. Nor did it accuse Israel of violating any IAEA rule. The military nature of Iran’s nuclear facilities made them legally targetable for attack.

It is not legally clear when a US president may wield military might. But based on the written law and past US practice, Operation Midnight Hammer was a valid use of force.

Joel M. Margolis is the Legal Commentator, American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, U.S. Affiliate of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. His 2021 book, The Israeli-Palestinian Legal War, analyzed the major legal issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previously he worked as a telecommunications lawyer in both the public and private sectors.

The post The US Attack on Iran Was Legal first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

US Cannot ‘Compel’ Israel to Do Anything, US Special Envoy Says in Lebanon

US Ambassador to Turkey and US special envoy for Syria Thomas Barrack speaks after meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, in Beirut, Lebanon July 21, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Mohamed Azakir

Washington cannot “compel” Israel to do anything, US special envoy Thomas Barrack said in Beirut on Monday, in response to a reporter’s question about Lebanese demands that the US guarantees a halt to Israeli strikes on Lebanese territory.

The US last month proposed a roadmap to Lebanon‘s top officials to fully disarm Hezbollah within four months, in exchange for a halt to Israeli strikes and a withdrawal of Israeli troops still occupying positions in southern Lebanon.

Lebanon has asked Washington to act as a security guarantor to ensure that Israel will pull out its troops in full and halt targeting operations against members of Hezbollah, if the Iran-backed terrorist group begins handing in weapons.

Asked about those guarantees, Barrack told reporters after a meeting with Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam that the US “has no business in trying to compel Israel to do anything.”

He also told reporters that the US was not forcing Lebanon to strip Hezbollah of its arms, or considering sanctions against Lebanese officials if Hezbollah is not disarmed.

“There’s no consequence, there’s no threat, there’s no whip,” Barrack said.

Barrack, a longtime adviser to US President Donald Trump, also serves as US ambassador to Turkey and special envoy for Syria.

He is making his third trip to Lebanon in just over a month to discuss the US roadmap, which covers disarmament of non-state armed groups, long-awaited economic reforms and better ties with Lebanon‘s neighbor Syria.

Israel and Hezbollah fought a months-long war last year that ended with a US-brokered truce calling for both sides to halt fighting, for Israel to withdraw troops, and for Lebanon to be free of all non-state arms, starting with the southern region closest to the Israeli border.

While Hezbollah has handed in some weapons from depots in the country’s south to the Lebanese army, Israel says the group is violating the ceasefire by attempting to re-establish itself.

Lebanon and Hezbollah say Israel has breached the truce by continuing to occupy at least five vantage points in a strip of the Lebanese border, and carrying out strikes on what Israel says are Hezbollah members and arms depots.

The post US Cannot ‘Compel’ Israel to Do Anything, US Special Envoy Says in Lebanon first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Israeli Military Attacks Houthi Targets in Yemen’s Hodeidah Port

A bridge crane damaged by Israeli air strikes is pictured in the Red Sea port of Hodeidah, Yemen, July 31, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Khaled Abdullah

The Israeli military attacked Houthi targets in Yemen’s Hodeidah port on Monday in its latest operation against the Iran-backed terrorist group, which has been striking ships bound for Israel and launching missiles against it.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said the army was “forcefully countering any attempt to restore the terror infrastructure previously attacked.”

The Houthi-run Al Masirah TV said on Monday that a series of attacks on the port was under way, without providing any details.

The Israeli military said in a statement that the port it attacked had been used “among other things, to transfer weapons from the Iranian regime, which are then used by the Houthi to execute terrorist attacks against the State of Israel and its allies.”

Since Israel’s war in Gaza against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas began in October 2023, the Iran-aligned Houthis have been attacking vessels in the Red Sea in what they say are acts of solidarity with the Palestinians.

Israel has responded by launching attacks on Houthis, who control the most populous parts of Yemen, including the vital Hodeidah port.

“As I have made clear – Yemen’s fate is the same as Tehran’s. The Houthis will pay a heavy price for launching missiles toward the State of Israel,” Katz said.

The Houthis’ military spokesperson, Yahya Saree, said on Monday that the group attacked several targets in Israel with drones, which was in response to Israel’s recent attack on Hodeidah port and the continued military campaign against Gaza.

Earlier in July, the Houthis claimed responsibility for an attack on the Greek ship Eternity C that maritime officials say killed four of the 25 people aboard.

In May, the United States announced a surprise deal with the Houthis where it agreed to stop a bombing campaign against them in return for an end to shipping attacks, though the Houthis said the deal did not include sparing Israel.

The post Israeli Military Attacks Houthi Targets in Yemen’s Hodeidah Port first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Iran to Hold Nuclear Talks With European Powers on Friday

People walk near a mural of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, amid the Iran-Israel conflict, in Tehran, Iran, June 23, 2025. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

Iran, Britain, France, and Germany will hold nuclear talks in Istanbul on Friday, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson said early on Monday, following warnings by the three European countries that failure to resume negotiations would lead to international sanctions being reimposed on Iran.

“The meeting between Iran, Britain, France, and Germany will take place at the deputy foreign minister level,” Esmaeil Baghaei was quoted by Iranian state media as saying.

The talks scheduled for Friday come after foreign ministers of the E3 nations, as those European countries are known, as well as the European Union’s foreign policy chief, held their first call on Thursday with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi since Israel and the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities a month ago.

The three European countries, along with China and Russia, are the remaining parties to a 2015 nuclear deal reached with Iran – from which the United States withdrew in 2018 – that lifted sanctions on the Middle Eastern country in return for restrictions on its nuclear program.

The E3 have said they would restore UN sanctions on Tehran via the “snapback mechanism” by the end of August if nuclear talks that were ongoing between Iran and the US before the Israel-Iran air war do not resume or fail to produce concrete results.

“If EU/E3 want to have a role, they should act responsibly, and put aside the worn-out policies of threat and pressure, including the ‘snap-back’ for which they lack absolutely [any] moral and legal ground,” Araqchi said earlier in the week.

The snapback mechanism can be used to restore UN sanctions before the UN Security Council resolution enshrining the deal expires on Oct. 18.

Prior to the Israel-Iran war, Tehran and Washington held five rounds of nuclear talks mediated by Oman but faced major stumbling blocks such as uranium enrichment in Iran, which Western powers want to bring down to zero to minimize any risk of weaponization.

Tehran maintains its nuclear program is solely meant for civilian purposes.

The post Iran to Hold Nuclear Talks With European Powers on Friday first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News