On the morning of June 13, 2025, the city of Tehran was rocked by deafening explosions. An unexpected Israeli military operation began, targeting nuclear and military facilities throughout Iran. Israel asserted that its actions were justified under the principle of ‘anticipatory self-defense,’ a concept that is narrowly defined in international law. However, the aftermath of the operation—marked by ruined streets, civilians in fear, and families mourning the death of their beloved ones—inevitably gave rise to some serious questions regarding the legality and legitimacy of the operation.
In accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the use of force is only considered to be lawful in response to an actual armed attack and is to be guided by the principles of necessity and proportionality. Furthermore, many international scholars have concluded that Israel’s rationale falls short of the high thresholds for anticipatory self-defense established by customary international law. In particular, the historic Caroline criteria require that any self-defense be in response to a threat that is “instant, overwhelming, [and leaves] no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”
At the time, Iran was preparing for high-level nuclear negotiations with the United States, rather than for war. Therefore, the attack would seem to be a preemptive strike based on strategic considerations, rather than one of legitimate self-defense.
Given such circumstances, many legal experts view the operation as lacking a lawful basis under the jus ad bellum framework. The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of armed force either as an instrument of pressure or as a guise for negotiations. Two disturbing scenarios have been suggested: either the attack was utilized as a tool of coercion to force Iran’s submission, or the negotiations were merely a cover for planned aggression.
In either case, launching war to compel negotiation violates the Charter’s framework and international diplomatic norms governing the use of force.
The scale and impact of the attack were truly staggering. Within just a few hours, prominent figures, including nuclear scientists and several senior IRGC commanders, were killed. Yet, it soon became apparent that the attacks were not limited to their military objectives. Civilian areas were hit with alarming regularity. Reports from north of Tehran indicate that a massive explosion caused heavy civilian casualties, including women and children.
While Israel’s military command claimed to have only targeted military infrastructure, the reality contradicted that assertion. Residential complexes, hospitals, and even the headquarters of the Iranian Red Crescent were damaged by blasts. While these locations may not have been the primary targets, their location within the blast radius of repeated Israeli airstrikes violated the principle of distinction outlined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
According to Iran’s Health Ministry, among the 610 individuals reported to have been killed during the 12-day conflict, there were 102 women and 38 children, including a two-month-old baby.
These numbers indicate that the strikes were not exclusively focused on military objectives, which led to serious issues under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, intentional attacks on civilian populations and indiscriminate strikes that result in disproportionate harm are classified as war crimes.
In one particularly distressing incident later that evening, Israeli forces launched four airstrikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) building, killing two journalists. Attacks on journalists and media infrastructure violate UN Security Council Resolution 1738, which “condemns intentional attacks against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel, as such, in situations of armed conflict.”
The psychological toll of the war was immediate. In the first days following the attacks, families began fleeing major cities under bombardment. Tehran and Isfahan, in particular, saw mass civilian displacement. In parts of Tehran, entire residential blocks were leveled by airstrikes using heavy ordnance in densely populated neighborhoods, rather than by targeted ground assaults.
Reports indicate that B-2 stealth bombers dropped “bunker-buster” bombs on the underground Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities during the joint US–Israeli raids of June 22. The strikes caused considerable regional destruction and concern, and there was a strong possibility of radioactive leakage that could have endangered the lives of millions.
Another dimension of this crisis involves Israel’s broader goal of destabilizing the Iranian government. Israeli officials have consistently stated that the initiative is targeted against the regime, not the people of Iran. During an ongoing foreign attack, encouraging citizens to protest or rebel against the government is not only provocative but also irresponsible and harmful. This form of psychological warfare, combined with military operations, is intended to weaken national unity and stability. In practice, however, the outcome has been quite the opposite. A rally-round-the-flag effect emerged, and even the critical voices among Iran’s civil society found themselves uniting in a common commitment to maintain national sovereignty.
These developments show that Israel failed to achieve its objective of altering the regional order by regime change. Given this failure, and despite the declared ceasefires during the conflict, many of which were repeatedly violated by Israeli air raids, no binding legal agreement or ceasefire treaty is in place to ensure the war’s conclusion. It is likely that any existing ceasefires will be violated again in the near future as Israel seeks to resume military operations to fulfill its strategic aims. As a result, the threat of renewed aggression looms ominously.
This conflict highlights Israel’s extensive history of military interventions and occupations in neighboring countries across the region and also exposes a glaring double standard in global nuclear politics. Israel has never joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is widely believed to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal that operates beyond IAEA safeguards.
In contrast, Iran is a party to the NPT, with numerous international inspections confirming that its nuclear program has remained peaceful. As Reuters reported, “the UN nuclear watchdog has said it has ‘no credible indication’ of an active, coordinated weapons program in Iran.” Yet Israel justifies preventive strikes on nuclear grounds while avoiding the transparency it demands from others.
Furthermore, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior officials are currently under preliminary examination by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for allegations of war crimes committed in Gaza.
This challenge goes beyond mere legality; it fundamentally concerns moral judgment and the essence of humanity. Legal professionals are often compared to technicians, skilled in the rules but sometimes removed from the human realities those rules are meant to serve. If legal expertise is applied mechanically, divorced from empathy and moral judgment, it can turn into a tool for injustice. History cautions us that knowledge without wisdom can lead to terrible consequences. Similarly, legal practitioners must develop a deeper awareness that transcends technicalities. In this regard, they must ask themselves: Do those who are responsible for upholding international law truly care about its human impact? How can they truly have ‘skin in the game’ when their decisions affect lives? Ultimately, how can the legal community ensure that its actions serve humanity, rather than merely advancing the interests of the powerful?
Atena Abdollahi is a law graduate from Alzahra University in Tehran and co-founder of the Association for Multinational Action in Law (AMAL).
