Fact Check: was irans attack on israel legal?

Fact Check: Was Iran's Attack on Israel Legal?

What We Know

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion," targeting Iran's nuclear facilities and military assets, claiming it was a necessary act of self-defense against an imminent threat from Iran's nuclear ambitions (source-1). Israel's Prime Minister stated that the operation aimed to eliminate a threat to Israel's survival, citing intelligence that Iran was significantly advancing towards nuclear capability (source-1).

The legality of Israel's actions under international law, particularly the right to self-defense as outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, has been a subject of intense debate. Some legal scholars argue that Israel's actions could be justified as anticipatory self-defense, given the perceived immediacy of the threat from Iran (source-1). Conversely, others contend that such preemptive strikes violate international law unless an actual armed attack has occurred (source-5).

Iran's previous missile attacks on Israel, including a significant missile strike in October 2024, have been cited as evidence of an ongoing conflict between the two nations, which complicates the legal assessment of Israel's actions (source-2).

Analysis

The claim regarding the legality of Israel's attack on Iran hinges on interpretations of international law concerning self-defense. Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for self-defense only if an armed attack occurs, which has traditionally been interpreted narrowly by the International Court of Justice (source-1). However, some scholars advocate for a broader interpretation that allows for anticipatory self-defense in cases where an imminent threat exists, especially concerning weapons of mass destruction (source-1).

The Israeli government has presented intelligence suggesting that Iran was on the verge of launching a nuclear attack, thus framing its military action as a necessary preemptive measure. This perspective is supported by various legal commentators who argue that the context of the threat justifies Israel's actions under the principle of anticipatory self-defense (source-1).

However, critics argue that Israel's actions lack a clear legal basis under international law, as no actual armed attack had yet occurred at the time of the strike. This viewpoint is echoed by various international law experts and organizations, including the UN, which have condemned the attack as a violation of international law (source-6, source-7).

The debate is further complicated by the existence of an ongoing armed conflict, as noted by commentators who argue that Israel's attack could be seen as part of a larger pattern of hostilities between the two nations (source-2).

Conclusion

The claim that Iran's attack on Israel was legal is Partially True. While Israel's actions can be framed within the context of anticipatory self-defense, the absence of an actual armed attack at the time raises significant legal questions. The interpretations of international law regarding self-defense are contentious, and while some legal scholars support Israel's justification, others firmly oppose it, arguing that it violates established norms. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran adds another layer of complexity to the legal assessment, suggesting that while Israel may have perceived a legitimate threat, the legality of its actions remains debatable.

Fact Check: was irans attack on israel legal?