Justified Self-Defense or Unwarranted Aggression? Perspective on Israel’s Attack on Iran

By Nicodemus Ajak Bior Khom, Juba, South Sudan

Tuesday, 17 June 2025 (PW) — For the last few days, the world has been watching in horror the exchange of missiles between Israel and Iran, raining on their respective cities. The announcement of the strike against Iran was made by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on June 13, 2025. The Israel’s prime minister described the attack as ‘a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival’ and said the operation will continue for ‘as many days as it takes to remove this threat’.

Those who have been keenly following the events in the middle east, particularly between Israel and Iran, would agree that this has been brewing for a long time. The attacks began early on Friday last week, with the first strikes hitting Iranian militaryand government targets and killing several senior military leaders and prominent Iranian nuclear scientists.

Israeli’s justification for the attacks

The Israeli government claims that the attack was a “preemptive” strike– aimed to “decapitate” Iran’s nuclear program, meaning that they acted to address an immediate, inevitable threat to prevent Iran from making a nuclear bomb. He also described the attack as ‘a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival’ and said the operation will continue for ‘as many days as it takes to remove this threat’. 

Whether this claim is true or false, is not the object of this article. One thing is however clear, this attack was not spontaneous, but rather as many analysts argued and the Israelis themselves admitted, that this was a ‘meticulously plannedstrike over a long period of time’. The Israelis security source indicate that they worked for years on intelligence needed for the strikes and even claimed that the Mossad agents had covertly deployed weapons across Iran that carried the initial attacks on Iranian soil. 

Another justification by the Israelis for this attack on Iran is that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report that was released on June 12 that condemned Iran for material violations of its Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT) commitments until the early 2000s constitutes such an emergency. Although this claim is disputed by the IAEA, suggesting that ‘there was nothing not already known to the relevant parties. According to Sanam Vakil, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme, the Israel’s strike against Iran is aimed “to achieve three primary objectives: to:

a. Eliminate senior commanders and disrupt Iran’s operational leadership;  

b. To inflict damage on its nuclear program; and 

c. To weaken its (Iranian) defensive capabilities”.

He continued to posit that “beyond these immediate military goals, it is apparent that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu also seeks to sabotage any remaining diplomatic pathways toward a revived nuclear agreement and perhaps to incite internal unrest within Iran”. 

Israel Defense Forces claims that they have worth of “accumulated intelligence information” indicating that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was “approaching the point of no return.” More specifically, the regime’s efforts to “produce thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium” and establish “decentralized and fortified enrichment compounds in underground facilities” amounted to an illicit program to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. Iran could achieve this goal, the IDF concluded, within “a short period of time.”

The IDF also justifies their actions in targeting the Iranian scientists by claiming to have a new intelligence that showed that even while negotiations were going on with the United States, Iran has been “advancing a secret plan” to fast-track technological advancement across all elements of its nuclear program, with senior scientists “working to secretly develop all components for developing a nuclear weapon.”

Iranians’ justification for their attacks on Israel

On their part, the Iranians accuse Israel of unjust aggressionagainst their country and violating their sovereignty. They then launched retaliatory airstrikes at Israeli cities of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa and other towns resulting in destruction of infrastructure and loss of civilian lives. The Iranian claims that they are acting on self-defense in the face of what they called ‘Israel’s unlawful act that violates international law and the sovereignty of their nation-state’. They claim to be acting and affirm Iran’s complete and legitimate right to defend itself and to respond by all means. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Israel of starting a war. A senior Iranian official said nowhere in Israel would be safe and revenge would be painful.

Is preemptive attack on Iran by Israelis justified under the UN Charter and the international law?

To answer, this question, the answers lie in the legality of international law and the use of force as a matter of the jus ad bellum–right to war or rather, laws governing when states may resort to war. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter demands that ‘All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations’.

It’s clear from above Article, that the prohibition of the use of force was introduced into the international legal order– using the language of the Charter’s preamble –to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, the kind that was witnessed in the first and second world wars. Thus, beyond all doubt, it was established to prevent States from armed interventions, armed conflicts, aggression and any other major forms of armed measures. However, this hasn’t prevented wars completely, but has minimized or prevented wars at the levels of previous world wars.

However, Article 51 of the UN Charter states that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 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-defense 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.”

Looking at the UN’s Article 51 critically, a criterion for applicability of this article emerges,

1. State is permitted to respond to an attack either by another state or non-state actor

2. In responding to an aggression in exercise of self-defense, states response need be Necessary and proportionate. Necessary in the sense that there was and continues to be a real threat to the security of your state that warrants the military response; and Proportionate in the sense that every action you are taking in response is actually proportionate to the attack that you are facing, typical of not using a hammer to kill a fly!

3. As a defending state, you still have a responsibility to respect the primacy of the UN security council which is to maintain international peace and security, so if the security council has taken the resolution, potentially even under chapter 7 of the charter, you as a defending state has to respect that resolution, and in fact, your right to self-defense ceases to exist at least In this specific case 

4. You also have to inform the UNSC of any measures that you take in the name of self-defense as established by article 51 of the UN charter. 

Therefore, looking at the use of anticipatory, preemptive or preventive self-defense, the precise wording matters a lot, thestarting point is that this provision is a corner stone of the UN system and therefore, there are constraints and conditions that exists to responding also to a looming attack by another state or non-state actor. The restrictive framework established by Articles 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN charter does provide for the possibility of engaging in anticipatory self-defense as we call it in international law.

In this sense, anticipatory self-defense, is defined by an imminent attack, and imminent attack is defined by the former US secretary of state Daniel Webster as “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice or means, and no moment for deliberation”. (Caroline Doctrine). That’s the bare minimum that a state needs to meet in terms of conditions when engaging in anticipatory self-defense, some however have argued of a need for higher threshold for such actions to be legal given indeed their restrictive nature of the UN system and the centrality of the provision of the use of force.

One would then I argue that, if the Caroline Doctrine is anything to go by, then, preemptive or preventive self-defense are not permitted under international law because they do not meet the criteria formulated in that doctrine, so anything that refers to ‘there being a likely attack and possibility of an attack’ is basically a speculative reaction to something that is supposed to happen, doesn’t hold water under Article 51 and is therefore in contravention of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

We can then deduce from the Article 51 of the UN charter that the use of preemptive or anticipatory attacks on grounds of self-defense is legally contentious because of the higher threshold of proof that is required. Historically, the UN’s stance has been cautions about preemptive actions, for instance, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified in its 2004 advisory opinion on the legality of the use of force, that self-defense must be “Imminent” to be justified and that preemptive self defense must meet strict criteria, including clear evidence of an imminent threat. Although Israel has continuously argued that Iran is building a nuclear bomb and supports other militants within the region to destabilize and threaten the existence of Israel state, they could be justified in preemptively attacking Iran, using Article 51 of the UN Charter, aiming to neutralize threats before they materialize, although, under the International Law, as we have seen, such actions must be carried out with overwhelming evidence of an imminent danger.  Others have argued that by Israel attacking Iran’s infrastructure or other assets, Israel have crossed the proportionality and exceeded the self-defense limits and is now hinging on crossing into acts of aggression.

For the Iranians, this is a direct aggression and attack on their sovereignty and therefore are justified to retaliate as a self-defense measure as provided for under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Iran argues that it is their right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and refutes claims and threats from Israelis as unjust. Iran sees these attacks as acts of aggression by another state with the aim of undermining their sovereignty as provided for under international law, and therefore are justified to defend themselves from external aggression. 

From the scenes we are witnessing in both Isarel and Iran, it is clear that the requirement of international law for restraint and proportionality even in the exercise of self-defense, needs to be observed by both parties. Any military engagement must therefore be targeted, and proportional to threat at hand to avoid escalation and minimize civilian causalities. Both states of Israel and Iran are justified in their actions, Israel’s actions could be as they say, out of self defense from what they see as an existential threat from Iran, but could plunge the region and even the world to the brink of another world war. Conversely, Iran’s right to self-defense against Israel’s attacks as enshrined in the UN charter must also adhere to the criterion laid out in the Charter; the use of proportionality in self-defense, must also be the norm.

Conclusion

The International law governing the use of force is clearly complex, and this is a proof of that complexity even when bounded by strict conditions, that permits states to launch a preemptive strike in anticipation of imminent attack, and also that permits states to defend themselves when attacked by another state or non-state actors. Therefore, the legality on the use of self-defense depends on overwhelming evidence or proof of an imminent threats, proportionality, and adherence to international norms. One would argue that both Israel’s right to protect its self and Iran’s right to protect its sovereignty are protected principles, but their assertion must be balanced against the broader goal of the UN Charter, of maintaining global peace and security.

The UN Charter envisioned the use of force as the last resort with clear justification of the threats at hand, but still mindful of an obligation to maintain peace instead of escalating conflicts. However, the fundamental question, remains, to what extent do powerful states like the P5 members and their allies comply with this international law?  Your guess is as good as mine!

About the Author: Nicodemus A. Bior is an International Relations and Affairs commentator and a Policy Analyst. He can be reached on biorkom@gmail.com . The views expressed in this article are his own and do not reflect the views of the organization associated with him.

About Post Author