Under international law, Iran reserves the right to total retaliation against the unprecedented Israeli strikes on its nuclear and military infrastructure, which killed senior generals and top scientists, sparking a full-scale conflict that could destabilize the Middle East.
Israel’s Pattern of International Law Violations
Israel has been condemned by numerous international organizations and courts for decades of flagrantly breaking international law. Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories has been categorically declared unlawful by the International Court of Justice. The court found that Israel’s actions violate basic international legal principles, such as the ban on annexing land by force, by annexing significant portions of the occupied Palestinian territory.
Israel alone has violated more than 30 UN Security Council resolutions, according to the UN’s extensive documentation of its violations. These transgressions include systematic violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, collective punishment of civilian populations, and the construction of illegal settlements. Israel’s actions have been described by UN experts as ‘an assault on the foundations of international law’ that includes crimes against humanity, including murder, torture, sexual violence, and repeated forced displacement.
Israel has committed war crimes, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian property, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, attacks on humanitarian workers, attacks on healthcare personnel and facilities, and collective punishment. On suspicion of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Current Military Escalation: Operation Rising Lion
The June 13, 2025, start of the Israeli military campaign against Iran marks a previously unheard-of intensification of the Middle East conflict. In what it called ‘Operation Rising Lion,’ Israel struck more than 100 nuclear sites, ballistic missile factories, and military installations throughout Iran with more than 200 warplanes. Leading nuclear scientists and senior Iranian military commanders, including Hossein Salami, commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, were killed in the strikes that targeted Iran’s primary nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz.
This operation, which specifically targets Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and military leadership, is part of a campaign that Netanyahu said would go on ‘for as many days as it takes to remove the threat.’ These attacks’ magnitude and reach mark a significant change from earlier, more intimate interactions to what experts describe as the start of potential all-out warfare between the regional powers.
The fact that these strikes took place right before planned US-Iranian nuclear talks in Oman shows that Israel is acting independently without consulting or getting permission from the US. In contrast to earlier coordinated defensive operations, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it clear that America was ‘not involved’ in the strikes.
Iran’s Legal Right to Self-Defense Under International Law
According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran has an inalienable right to self-defense under international law. When a state is attacked by armed forces, this fundamental principle acknowledges the right to self-defense on both an individual and collective level. Iran’s ‘obligation to defend against foreign aggression’ under this legal right of self-defense has been highlighted by the country’s foreign ministry.
According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, ‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.’ As long as hostile campaigns cannot be stopped by non-forcible means, states are still allowed to use force in self-defense, according to international legal experts.
Iran’s claim of ‘total retaliation’ is consistent with accepted international legal norms. When it comes to self-defense, the proportionality principle permits actions that are both necessary and appropriate for the danger being faced. Iran’s asserted right to widespread retaliation is consistent with international legal precedents regarding defensive responses to armed attacks, especially considering the scope of Israeli strikes that targeted nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, and senior leadership.
The Question of State Legitimacy and International Recognition
Although 164 UN members have formally recognized Israel diplomatically, its legitimacy is still questioned because of its persistent occupation policies and systematic violations of international law. The state became a member of the UN in 1949 after being founded in 1948 in accordance with the UN Partition Plan. However, experts characterize its occupation strategy and violations of international law as causing an ‘ontological crisis’ that presents previously unheard-of challenges to its legitimacy.
Recent decisions by the International Court of Justice, which ruled that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory was unlawful and called for an immediate withdrawal, have seriously damaged Israel’s legal position. These court rulings, along with ICC arrest warrants for Israeli officials, have led to what academics refer to as a ‘legitimacy crisis’ that goes beyond regional politics to concerns about international law’s effectiveness.
The UN General Assembly, on the other hand, overwhelmingly supported Palestine’s bid for full UN membership (143 votes in favor to 9 against), and 146 UN members have recognized Palestine as a sovereign state. The rights of Palestinians to self-determination and sovereignty over areas that Israel has occupied since 1967 are affirmed by this recognition.
Regional and Global Implications
With possible repercussions that go well beyond bilateral Israeli-Iranian relations, the current escalation signifies a fundamental change in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Israel’s Begin Doctrine, which calls for preemptive strikes on nuclear facilities and WMDs, is being applied by targeting Iran’s military leadership and nuclear infrastructure. Iran is anticipated to retaliate with unprecedented ferocity, in contrast to earlier applications against Iraq (1981) and Syria (2007).
International responses have been conflicting, with some countries stressing Israel’s right to self-defense while others are worried about escalation. The military escalation has been denounced by the UN Secretary-General, who has voiced special concern over attacks on nuclear facilities. Oman and other regional powers have called Israel’s actions a ‘dangerous and reckless escalation’ that is against the principles of international law.
Wider ramifications of the conflict include the possibility of upsetting nuclear talks, regional instability impacting world energy markets, and the danger of enlisting more nations in direct conflict. The attacks have already caused oil prices to soar, and given the unprecedented scope of the Israeli operation, diplomatic attempts to control the escalation are beset with difficulties.
Conclusion: The Intersection of Law, Legitimacy, and Retaliation
Fundamental conflicts within the international legal system over state legitimacy, the right to self-defense, and the application of international law are highlighted by the current crisis. There are significant concerns regarding Israel’s adherence to the legal requirements of statehood in light of its numerous transgressions of international law, which have been confirmed by numerous UN agencies and international courts. Traditional ideas of state legitimacy based only on diplomatic recognition are called into question by the systematic nature of these violations as well as the continued occupation and settlement activities that the ICJ has ruled to be unlawful.
Given the scope of Israeli attacks on its sovereign territory, Iran’s claim of the right to ‘total retaliation’ is consistent with established international legal frameworks governing self-defense. Article 51 of the UN charter provides legal justification for proportionate defensive responses when nuclear facilities, military leadership, and civilian infrastructure are targeted.
The effectiveness of international law and the idea of sovereign equality among states will be greatly impacted by how this crisis is ultimately resolved. Whether the legal frameworks governing state conduct continue to have authority or whether power politics continue to take precedence over legal obligations when determining international outcomes will depend on how the international community responds to this escalation.
