joint America and Israel attack Iran It means further erosion of the international legal order. Under international law, these attacks It is neither pre-emptive nor legal.

Israel and the United States launched Operation Judas Shield and Operation Epic Fury Meanwhile, diplomatic negotiations were actively underway between Washington and Tehran regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Just two days ago, Tense round of US-Iran talks It was signed in Geneva, and both sides agreed to continue. US President Donald Trump he indicated he would give negotiators more time. Then the bomb came.

Illegality of the attack

Israel said: The strike was “precautionary”In other words, it was supposed to prevent Iran from developing any threatening capabilities. but There is no legal basis for preventive war. Under international law. of The UN Security Council did not approve Any military action, the only legal means of using force in self-defense, was never pursued.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter The use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state is prohibited. pre-emptive self-defense like we do claimed beforewhich has a very narrow prescription under Carolineism. Threats must be “immediate, overwhelming, and leave no options open.” As of February 28, no such situation existed in Iran.

The core of the current crisis is that Trump is the one who ended it. Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) 2018had regional support to control Iran’s nuclear program. US Director of National Intelligence Testimony in March 2025 Iran insisted it was not pursuing nuclear weapons. Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency I said no.

US intelligence has also reportedly suggested that it would take Iran three years to build a nuclear weapon. Additionally, the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran last year halted the plan. Go back a few months. President Trump insists on Iran’s nuclear program had been erased.

Change of government by force is illegal

President Trump said the attack would end Iran’s nuclear weapons program and change of government. President Trump urged Iranians will ‘take over your government’Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the goals are: “Eliminate the existential threat posed by Iran’s terrorist regime”.

Forced change of government violates the Covenant basic principles Principles of national sovereignty and non-intervention based on the United Nations Charter.

Strikes covered supreme leader of iranthe president, the military chiefs of staff, and military infrastructure. Intentionally targeting a head of state also exceeds the criteria that distinguish military operations from military operations. act of aggression.

Attacks on heads of state are illegal new york conventionFor the obvious reason of stability. due to the death of Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameneithe power vacuum will only increase the hardships on the ground for the Iranian people.

Additionally, we promise to: please give me back the shah Iran’s former monarch did not consider the authoritarian implications of such rule.

Reports that at least 100 girls aged 7 to 12 were killed in an airstrike on a primary school in Minab highlight the human toll of an unplanned regime change.

U.S. and Israeli statements suggest that regime change takes precedence over any regime change plan. But regime change requires extremely careful planning, as seen in the return of slavery in Libya in the aftermath of the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and how the Islamic State filled the power vacuum after the death of dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

In this case, there is no clear plan to rebuild or stabilize Iran after these attacks. Western allies have expressed concern that Washington lacks a coherent strategy for the aftermath of the attack, and point to minimal preparations for post-conflict reconstruction and regime transition.

As Mexico’s representative stated at the United Nations Security Council in response to recent US actions in Venezuela, the historical record of regime change shows that what Mexico has done so far is “It has exacerbated the conflict and weakened the social and political fabric of the state.”. According to The Atlantic, “total chaos” is likely.

strike in iran

diplomacy as deception

Starting a strike during active negotiations is Principle of good faith in Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter. as Arms Control Association points outIranian policymakers had already accused the United States of malicious intent after a June 2025 airstrike disrupted pre-scheduled talks.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry denounced the Feb. 28 attack as a negotiated attack and a violation of international law.

Reactions of world leaders

We should be alarmed and dismayed by the increasing brazenness with which Western leaders, including our Prime Minister, are condoning illegal activities. Anthony Albanese supported the attack, calling it “an action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” This would once again put Australia in open contradiction to the fundamental principles of the liberal international order.

France, Germany and the UK issued a joint statement condemning Iran’s retaliatory attacks and urging Iran to negotiate a solution. However, he did not comment directly on the US and Israeli attacks on Iran. Their silence is deafening.

Russia and China criticized the actions of the United States and Israel, calling for an immediate halt to military operations and a return to diplomatic negotiations.

The international legal order is now on the brink of collapse. When powerful states wage illegal wars under the guise of precaution and openly pursue regime change under the cover of diplomacy, the “rules-based order” literally dies.

Shannon Brincat is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Juan Zahir Naranjo Cáceres is a PhD candidate in Political Science, International Relations and Constitutional Law at the University of the Sunshine Coast.