Why Israel’s Preventive Strike on Iran Violates
International Order
Strategic Analysis | Reaslit Academic Institute
Abdinasir H. Timoweyne
Theconsistent Western invocation of "Israel’s right to self-defense"
following its June 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanzand Fordow obscures a critical legal contradiction: Can astate initiating armed force legally claim defensive justification? Asystematic examination reveals Israel’s actions constitute preventive
warfare—not lawful self-defense—undermining the UN Charter and ethical norms
governing interstate conflict.
TheFour Pillars of Illegitimacy
1.Breach of UN Charter Core Prohibition (Article 2(4))
"AllMembers shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state."
Israel’scross-border bombing of sovereign Iranian territory violated this foundational
principle. Absent an ongoing armed attack by Iran againstIsrael (the sole exception under Article 51), the strikes constituted unlawful
aggression. Iran’s prior proxy engagements and rhetorical hostility do not
satisfy the threshold for self-defense under the Caroline Doctrine,which requires an "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of
means" (ICJ, Nicaragua v. USA, 1986).
2.Absence of Collective Security Authorization
The UN Security Council—vested with exclusive authority to authorize force
under Chapter VII—issued no mandate for military action. Resolutions
sanctioning Iran (2231, 1929) explicitly prohibited unilateral strikes. U.S.
and U.K. vetoes of draft resolutions condemning Israel’s operation further
demonstrated the selective nullification of collectivesecurity mechanisms by Western powers.
3.Moral Failure Under Just War Theory
Michael Walzer’s framework (Just and Unjust Wars) renders Israel’saction indefensible:
Not Last Resort: Diplomacy (JCPOA revival talks) and non-military pressure (sanctions) remained
viable. Israel rejected EU-mediated de-escalation days before the strikes.
Disproportionality: Targeting nuclear sites risked regional radioactive contamination and guaranteed
massive Iranian retaliation (realized in IRGC missile attacks on U.S.
bases).
Unjust Cause: Preventing potential future capabilities (IAEA confirmed no active weapons program) lacks ethical legitimacy.
4. TheRealist Calculus: Fear Over Law
Realism explains—but does not justify—Israel’s choice:
"Statesact to neutralize perceived future threats when the costs of inaction exceed
the risks of aggression."
— Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics
Israel’sstrike reflected a Hobbesian assessment of Iran’s nuclear latency as an
existential danger. Yet realist logic acknowledges such actions deliberatelyviolate international law to serve strategic interests—a realityWestern rhetoric obscures by misapplying "self-defense."
StrategicImplications
Erosion of Norms: Legitimizing preventive strikes invites replication (e.g., Russian actions in Georgia, Saudi strikes in Yemen).
Escalation Trap: Iran’s subsequent withdrawal from JCPOA and enrichment to 90% demonstrates
the security paradox: actions meant to reduce threats amplify them.
Western Complicity: Providing F-35s (U.S.) and intelligence support (U.K.) while vetoing accountability makes Western states co-architects of normative decay.
Conclusion:The Rhetorical Facade
Israel’s attack on Iran was not self-defense—it was unlawful force drivenby anticipatory fear. Western powers shield this reality by manipulating legal
terminology, sacrificing the rules-based order for short-term alliance
management. Until "self-defense" is confined to its strict legal
definition—response to actual armed attack—Article 2(4) will remainexpendable parchment. In an era of proliferating drone warfare and nuclear
latency, this precedent invites catastrophic miscalculation.
"Whensurvival is threatened, the strong do what they can. But calling aggression
'defense' makes liars of us all."
— Adapted from Thucydides
