Israel launched a massive, unprovoked attack on the night of June 12 to 13, 2025. The Israeli attacks resulted in the deaths of 224 persons and the hospitalization of 1,277 others, as reported by the Iranian Ministry of Health. Tel Aviv, Haifa, and other Israeli cities were the targets of a succession of missile strikes conducted by Iran in response.
The International Commission of Jurists condemned Israel’s use of armed force against Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, recognizing it as a grave violation of the UN Charter and a significant threat to international peace and security.
Israel’s military attacks that evening targeted numerous sites, including Iran’s nuclear facility at Natanz, and led to the deaths of significant Iranian military commanders and nuclear scientists. “Nothing in international law can justify these armed attacks and deliberate targeting of civilians under protection,” stated Saeed Benarbia, director of the International Court of Justice’s Middle East and North Africa program. The deliberate targeting of civilians is forbidden by international humanitarian law, and the nuclear scientists who were slain in the Israeli attack are probably included.
It is crucial to acknowledge that Article 51 of the UN Charter, which was adopted in San Francisco on June 26, 1945, ensures that UN member states have the right to individual or collective self-defense, provided that an armed attack is directed at a member state. This privilege can only be exercised through proportionate measures that are required to fend off such an attack. No one is entitled to interpret Article 51 expansively.
The Iran-Israel conflict’s history is deeply entrenched in the ideology of the Islamic Republic, which assumed power in 1979 and incorporated hostility toward Israel as a central principle of its foreign policy and a critical component of its regional strategy. Iran’s indirect actions and Israel’s covert operations were the primary means by which their rivalry was conveyed for decades. U.S. foreign policy has consistently been inclined toward confrontation with Iran since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This trend is frequently exacerbated by media narratives that depict Iran as on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, harboring terrorists, and collaborating with groups such as Al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, these narratives are in stark contrast to the evidence of Iran’s active involvement in the fight against terrorism, particularly its pivotal role in the defeat of ISIS in Iraq. The media and the United States frequently portray Iran as a theocratic authoritarian state. However, a more thorough examination reveals a system that shares remarkable similarities with the United States and is dedicated to the advancement of regional democracy.
The two nations also have vastly different historical timelines: Iranian civilization has existed for more than 2,500 years, whereas the United States is only 250 years old. Nevertheless, these distinctions should not serve as an excuse for misinterpretations of reality. The oppression of Native Americans is a notable example of the U.S.’s history of aggression against various peoples. Iran’s foreign policy is explicitly designed to associate with oppressed nations. In accordance with Article 154 of the Iranian Constitution, the Islamic Republic refrains from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries and provides support to the just struggles of the oppressed worldwide.
Conversely, the United States has advocated for democracy using military interventions, including the bombardment in Yugoslavia. It has provided active support to Israel, whose treatment of Palestinians may be considered illegal under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted December 9, 1948).
While the United States and other major world powers maintain stockpiles of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons, Iran adheres to higher moral principles and categorically prohibits the production of WMDs due to their indiscriminate and unacceptable impact on human life. This prohibition pertains to weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Iran’s dedication to this ethical posture was demonstrated by its refusal to employ chemical weapons in response to Iraqi attacks during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, despite Iraq’s use of such weapons.
Nevertheless, American and allied media frequently portray Iran as a renegade state that is governed by a dictatorship and supports terrorism. These depictions are frequently accepted without thorough critical analysis.
The situation underwent a significant transformation in 2024, as both parties engaged in direct hostilities in April and October. Israeli and allied air defenses intercepted the majority of Iran’s two enormous missile barrages. Israel struck Iranian air defenses and missile production facilities with minimal resistance or retaliation after the second strike, which occurred in response to Israel’s substantial weakening of Hezbollah’s leadership in Lebanon. Hezbollah is Iran’s most potent proxy.
As Iran’s regional influence diminished and its missile and drone arsenals were largely rendered ineffective, the nuclear threat, which Israel regards as existential, continued to rise. The primary objective of Israel was not merely to restrict but to completely prevent the production of fissile material that could be used to construct nuclear weapons.
It is recommended that Donald Trump distance himself from Israel to resolve the Iran-Israel conflict. Iranian leaders would be less inclined to negotiate if they suspected that the U.S. president was engaging in a double game. If the conflict persists, Trump may threaten Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the withdrawal of support, which poses a threat to the lives of 40,000 U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf and hundreds of thousands of Americans in Israel. Simultaneously, the United States could propose a nuclear agreement with Iran that is reasonable and not one-sided, and that includes substantial sanctions relief. This would demonstrate that Trump is sincere in his desire for an agreement, rather than engaging in deception.
An Israeli military assault appears to be a method for President Trump to bolster Washington’s position in diplomatic negotiations, which he continues to pursue. Nevertheless, a cycle of mutual strikes between Israel and Iran, which would involve the U.S., Iran’s allies, and other states, could result in an escalating conflict. This situation has the potential to cause significant harm to civilians on both sides, create profound uncertainty in global markets, or even lead to a violent regime change in Tehran, which would be followed by protracted chaos and the emergence of a more hardline, nuclear-armed regime.
It is conceivable that the Iranian government may make concessions that are essential for its survival in the event of particularly adverse circumstances that jeopardize the regime’s foundations. In 2024, Israeli military attacks on Iranian territory were accompanied by covert operations, which included advanced electronic warfare, cyberattacks, and psychological operations.
Nevertheless, Iran’s political elite, bureaucracy, and leadership have a profound history. Iran is a state that has an abundance of individuals who are prepared to replace any vacancies, in contrast to non-state actors who the loss of numerous generals may paralyze. The nation’s nuclear program, which has been in operation since the 1950s, is bolstered by a robust scientific community and knowledge base that are impervious to explosions or the assassination of a dozen nuclear scientists.
The Fordow facility, which lies beneath a mountain and is heavily fortified, is one of Israel’s primary targets. This facility is where Iran houses highly enriched uranium and advanced centrifuges. The attacks primarily spared this site, as Israel lacked the necessary weaponry to destroy it.
President M. Pezeshkian of Iran stated, “Israel knows no boundaries. They invade wherever they want, with America’s permission.” U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East S. Witkoff effectively confirmed Iran’s assertion that “Israel can do nothing without our permission” during a conversation with Dr. Araqchi. This statement referred to the strikes on Iran, which were also conducted amid American sanctions.
Israel’s attacks are ultimately intended to destabilize and transform Iran’s regime, rather than merely weakening its nuclear program. On Fox News, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asserted that the war could result in the overthrow of the Iranian regime and that the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei could “end the conflict.” He stated to ABC News, “This will not escalate the conflict; it will end it,” underscoring that Israel will take the necessary actions.
Israeli officials publicly toy with the notion of regime change in Iran to exert more pressure on Khamenei, with the expectation that he will consent to the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program to preserve his regime.
Article 51 of the UN Charter is in direct opposition to a broad interpretation of preemptive self-defense. Israel’s actions, which are predicated on the 2001 Bush Doctrine, are intended to legitimize preemptive war, as evidenced by the U.S. military’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq following September 11, 2001. In his address to the UN General Assembly on September 12, 2002, President Bush first emphasized the significance of preemptive self-defense, stating, “We can be certain that [Saddam Hussein] has nuclear weapons only when, God forbid, he uses them. Our duty to all our citizens is to do everything possible to ensure that such a day never comes.”
Ironically, Bush’s argument most strongly justifies preemptive attacks against “rogue states” that have or may acquire weapons of mass destruction. The most recent operations in Gaza and other locations have demonstrated that the United States and its allies, particularly Israel, have become increasingly prone to violating international humanitarian law.
For instance, the military campaign in Gaza that Israel conducted reportedly resulted in the deaths of over 26,000 individuals, and the majority of the 2.3 million residents of the enclave were compelled to evacuate their residences. In the court case “South Africa v. Israel,” Judge Joan E. Donoghue, the President of the International Court of Justice, urged Israel to “prevent the commission of all acts” of genocide by its forces and to “punish direct and public incitement to commit genocide” by politicians (including Americans) and other public figures. The ICJ assigns moral culpability to the United States and its media for their failure to adhere to international standards and their stances. The court’s decision weakened Israel’s international reputation by implicating countries that support Israel and its military campaign in the atrocities committed in Gaza.
The “threshold conflict” model is being implemented by Israel. When a nuclear-armed state employs force to prevent an adversary on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons from taking the final step, a new and alarming form of conflict arises. This new form of conflict generates an unstable escalation spiral, unlike conventional nuclear rivalries, such as those between India and Pakistan, where both parties have declared arsenals and operate under mutual deterrence.
Iran is becoming increasingly persuaded that it is unable to deter Israeli aggression in the absence of nuclear weapons; however, each step toward their acquisition results in more aggressive Israeli strikes. Israel is unable to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program through military means; it can only postpone it, which appears to guarantee Iran’s determination to eventually acquire the ultimate deterrent: nuclear weapons.
In this scenario, neither party can concede without settling for an unacceptable result. In terms of Israel, this would entail a more resolute Iran that is seeking to become a nuclear power, with the potential to deter Israel and end its military dominance in the region. Iran would be at risk of regime change because of the devastating Israeli attacks. The repercussions of this lethal logic are far-reaching and extend beyond the Middle East.
The entire architecture of nuclear governance begins to disintegrate when preemptive strikes are implemented as a means of enforcing nonproliferation norms. In the absence of these foundations, the world is confronted with an unstable future that is characterized by accelerated nuclear proliferation and cycles of preemptive attacks. This scenario is significantly more perilous than the Cold War standoff that influenced nuclear management.
According to the International Court of Justice’s ruling in the case “Nicaragua v. United States of America,” Israel must satisfy specific criteria to justify its use of force. To be more precise, the target’s essence must be determined. Israel regarded the facilities where Iran stockpiles uranium enrichment components as legitimate self-defense targets, contending that these components are a component of a nuclear program intended to attack neighboring states.
Non-interference in the domestic jurisdiction of another state is a fundamental principle of international law. No state should be permitted to organize, assist, incite, finance, or permit subversive, terrorist, or armed activities that are intended to violently overthrow the regime of another state or to interfere in civil unrest in another country. The International Court of Justice also defines “armed attack” as actions that may be perceived as a threat, the use of force, or interference in the internal or external affairs of other states, such as the provision of armaments or material support. It is crucial to note that the state that is the victim of an armed assault is the one that is required to determine and declare that it has been attacked. In customary international law, no rule permits another state to exercise its right to self-defense solely based on its evaluation of the circumstances.