Attacks on Iran and International Law

War against Iran US attack on nuclear facilities – what does international law say?

analysis

The US has attacked nuclear facilities in Iran. Experts say that this is hardly justifiable under international law. An analysis.

By Michael-Matthias Nordhardt and Christoph Kehlbach, ARD Legal Department

[This article posted on 6/22/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/us-angriff-voelkerrecht-100.html.]

The US has intervened in the war between Israel and Iran and deliberately targeted nuclear facilities in Iran. US President Donald Trump spoke of “very successful attacks” in a text message on his social media service “Truth Social” during the night.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also praised the attacks as an “overwhelming success.” However, under international law, states are fundamentally obliged to treat each other peacefully. The legal basis for this can be found in the Charter of the United Nations (UN).
US government after attacks: “No war against Iran, but against its nuclear program”

US Vice President Vance emphasizes after the attacks that the goal is not regime change in Iran. more
Prohibition of violence under international law

According to this, the prohibition of violence under international law applies. Article 2 states literally:

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.

This means that UN members may not simply attack other UN members militarily. There is only one exception to this prohibition of force: the right to self-defense.
UN Charter allows self-defense

This is also expressly mentioned in the UN Charter. Article 51 states:

This Charter shall not impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.

A state may therefore use military means if it is itself attacked. Legitimate acts of defense then also include strikes against military targets on the territory of the attacking state.
Narrow limits for “preemptive self-defense”

A state may also defend itself against an imminent attack if no other means are available. This is what international law experts call “preemptive self-defense,” Professor Pierre Thielbörger from the Bochum Institute for International Peace Law and Humanitarian Law told the ARD legal editorial team last week.

“However, ‘preventive self-defense’ against a merely possible future attack that is not yet imminent is inadmissible,” said the international law expert.
No evidence of an attack planned by Iran

The decisive factor in determining whether a state may invoke its right to self-defense is therefore: Was an attack imminent? And how concrete was the danger?

In the case of the US attacks on Iran, it would therefore have to be examined whether Iran was on the verge of attacking the US. However, as far as can be seen, there is currently no reliable evidence of this.

Against this background, international law expert Jochen von Bernstorff described the US attacks to the news agency dpa today as “clearly illegal.” He said: “I see little room for justification under international law.”

Player: videoUSA attacks nuclear facilities in Iran: No radioactive radiation released

June 22, 2025
Iranian nuclear facilities What is known about the US attack

The US has attacked Iranian nuclear facilities earlier than expected. What is known about this? More
Support for Israel’s self-defense?

Article 51 of the UN Charter refers not only to the “individual” right to self-defense, but also to the “collective” right to self-defense. This means that it is entirely compatible with international law to provide military support to another state in its self-defense against an attack.

However, this requires that the other state is actually in a situation of self-defense. In other words, if one wanted to interpret the US attacks as legitimate support for Israel, this would only be possible if Israel itself could invoke the right of self-defense against Iran.

Player: video “Israel has driven the US into this conflict,” Nicole Deitelhoff, Leibniz Institute for Peace and Conflict Research, on the US attack

interview June 22, 2025
Escalation in the Middle East “Israel has driven the US into the conflict”

With the US intervention in Iran, conflict researcher Deitelhoff sees the world order and international law hanging in the balance. more
International law experts skeptical

However, the majority of international law experts in Germany did not and do not see Israel’s right to self-defense against Iran – neither at the beginning of the Israeli bombardment on June 13 nor at present.

For example, former Federal Constitutional Court judge Andreas Paulus said in an interview with Legal Tribune Online (LTO): “The explicit latent threat to Israel from the mullah regime must be taken seriously, but it is not sufficient on its own to justify self-defense.”

International law expert Pierre Thielbörger assessed the situation similarly: “Israel’s attacks are still within the realm of preventive self-defense, which international law does not recognize in order not to undermine the prohibition of violence between states that actually applies,” he told the ARD legal editorial team.

Player: videoBernd Rasem, ARD-aktuell, on the military conflict between Israel and Iran

analysis June 17, 2025
Attacks by Israel and Iran What is permitted under international law – and what is not?

Israel attacks Iran – and declares it a preemptive strike. Tehran bombs Israeli cities. more
Nuclear facilities under attack

In their attacks, the US has deliberately targeted only Iranian nuclear facilities. Even if military strikes are – exceptionally – permissible under international law, such facilities enjoy special protection.

The Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1977, stipulates that nuclear power plants may not be attacked even if they are military targets “if such an attack would release dangerous forces and thereby cause severe losses among the civilian population.”
Special protection for nuclear power plants

An exception to this prohibition is only possible under very strict conditions. Namely, if a nuclear power plant “supplies electrical power for the regular, significant, and immediate support of acts of war, and if such an attack is the only practical means of ending this support.”

This category includes facilities used for uranium enrichment for military purposes, said international law professor Christoph Safferling from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

“Then, under international law, it is to be regarded as an arms factory, i.e., a legitimate target in war.” However, the prerequisite would remain that military strikes would be justified in the specific situation, i.e., that a situation of permissible self-defense exists.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For the attention of the interested global public:
1. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, has made it clear that there is NO Iranian nuclear weapons program and NO immediate threat from Iran.
2. The Washington Post reveals to the world that the Israeli attack on Iran had been planned for months and decided in March. And that it had NOTHING to do with Iran’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.
3. The US military strike against Iran, which was deemed legal, illegal, or whatever, is not only more contrary to international law than we already thought, but also joins the long list of US military actions that use untruths as a pretext and lies to legitimize military force that they have long been determined to use for entirely different reasons.
4. And yes: politicians and the media spread these lies and manipulate you in order to prevent you from forming your own opinion.
Source: Martin Sonneborn via Twitter/X

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Netanyahu decided on Iran war last year, then sought to recruit TrumpQuelle: Washington Post (Bezahlschranke)und: Eine völkerrechtliche Einordnung des bisherigen Krieges zwischen Israel, USA und dem IranQuelle: NachDenkSeiten

The EU’s pathetic response to Trump’s Iran attack