Author: Tanvi Vikrant Kate, a student of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar college of law
To the Point
In June 2025, the United States carried out direct military airstrikes on nuclear sites in Iran. The U.S. claimed it was acting in self-defence and to protect peace. But many countries and legal experts questioned whether this action was allowed under international law. This article explains what happened, what the law says, and whether the U.S. acted legally or not.
Use of Legal Jargon
Sovereignty – A country’s right to control its own land and decisions.
Use of force – When one country uses military power against another.
UN Charter – A global agreement that tells countries what they can or cannot do to keep peace.
Article 2(4) – Says countries cannot attack other countries.
Article 51 – Says a country can defend itself if it is attacked.
Preemptive self-defence – Acting before being attacked, based on a belief that an attack is coming soon.
Proportionality – The response must match the size of the threat.
Necessity – There must be no other option left before using force.
The Proof
🔹 What Happened
On June 22, 2025, the U.S. launched airstrikes on three nuclear sites in Iran: Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The U.S. used bombers, missiles, and drones to destroy what it said were dangerous nuclear facilities.
🔹 Why the U.S. Did This
The U.S. government said:
Iran was close to making nuclear weapons.
These weapons could be used against Israel, a U.S. ally.
The strikes were done to protect peace and stop a future war.
🔹 Iran’s Reaction
Iran said:
It was not attacking anyone.
The U.S. action was a violation of international law.
It responded by firing missiles at Israeli military targets.
Iran also went to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and asked for action against the U.S.
🔹 World Reactions
The United Nations Secretary-General called the U.S. strikes a danger to world peace.
Russia and China said the U.S. had broken international rules.
Israel and the United Kingdom supported the U.S. action.
The UNSC held meetings, but no action was taken because the U.S. used its veto power.
Abstract
This article looks at whether the U.S. had the right to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites in 2025. While the U.S. claimed self-defence and protection of allies, international law only allows force in very strict cases—usually after an actual attack. Since Iran hadn’t attacked the U.S., and there was no UN permission, the U.S. action appears to be against international law.
Case Laws
1. Nicaragua v. United States (1986)
The UN court said that a country can only use force in self-defence after being attacked. Fear or suspicion is not enough.
2. Oil Platforms Case (2003)
The court ruled that self-defence must be proved clearly, and the response must be needed and fair.
3. The Caroline Case (1837)
This old case said preemptive strikes are allowed only if the danger is immediate and urgent.
4. The Wall Case (2004)
The UN said that even when a country feels unsafe, it must follow the rules in the UN Charter and avoid attacking others unless there is a real threat.
5. UNSC Resolution 487 (1981)
This resolution condemned Israel for bombing a nuclear plant in Iraq. It said this kind of attack was not allowed under international law—even if it was done to stop future threats.
Conclusion
After studying the facts, legal rules, and past court decisions, we can say that the U.S. airstrikes on Iran were most likely illegal. Iran had not attacked the U.S., and the U.S. didn’t get approval from the United Nations. The U.S. said it acted to prevent a future war, but international law does not easily allow preemptive strikes. Such actions can make the world more unsafe and damage global peace systems.
FAQs
Q1: Why did the U.S. bomb Iran in 2025?
The U.S. said Iran was close to making nuclear weapons and could attack allies like Israel.
Q2: Did Iran attack the U.S. first?
No, Iran had not attacked the U.S. at the time of the airstrikes.
Q3: What does international law say about using force?
Countries can only use force if they are attacked or if the United Nations gives permission.
Q4: Can a country attack first if it feels threatened?
Only if the threat is very close and real. In most cases, countries must wait or use peaceful ways first.
Q5: Did the United Nations approve the U.S. strikes?
No, there was no approval from the UN Security Council.
Q6: Was this the first time such a strike happened?
No. In 1981, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant. The UN said that action was illegal too.
Q7: What is the risk of such actions?
If more countries start using force without real attacks, it can lead to more wars and less peace.
