By Sayyid Abbas Hosseinisa
Baqir al-Olum University
Abstract
On June 13, 2025, the U.S. and Israel conducted coordinated military strikes on Iran under the pretext of the pre-emptive strike doctrine. These attacks targeted nuclear facilities, military bases, and residential areas, resulting in extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. This article critiques the legitimacy of such strikes in the absence of clear evidence of an imminent threat, arguing that they breach Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions. It calls for a reassessment of the doctrine and stronger accountability mechanisms to prevent its misuse.
Introduction
On June 12, 2025, the U.S. and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran, killing 935 civilians, including children, women, and scientists. Justified as a pre-emptive response to a potential threat, the operation devastated infrastructure and drew condemnation. This article examines the legal and ethical implications of such a strategy, questioning whether security doctrines can override international law and human dignity.
Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine: legal basis and limitations
The pre-emptive strike doctrine originates from Article 51 of the UN Charter, allowing self-defence in response to an armed attack. However, its application before an actual strike occurs remains legally controversial. The Caroline Case (1837) established that pre-emption is lawful only when a threat is “imminent, immediate, and unavoidable.” In the 2025 Iran case, neither the U.S. nor Israel provided credible evidence of such a threat.
Iran’s UN Ambassador called the attacks a “declaration of war,” citing Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits force against another nation’s sovereignty. The International Court of Justice precedent in Nicaragua v. United States (1986) similarly ruled that unjustified military actions violate national sovereignty. These recent strikes clearly breach international norms.
From an ethical perspective, the doctrine also fails. Kantian ethics demand respect for autonomy and dignity, while Rawlsian justice emphasizes consensus and fairness. Both philosophies oppose military action without transparency or accountability.
Human Rights violations and legal breaches
The strikes extended beyond military targets, hitting residential neighborhoods. In Gilan province, a strike killed 16 civilians and injured 26. Such attacks violate the Geneva Conventions’ principle of distinction, which demands separation between military and civilian targets.
Strikes on nuclear sites at Fordo and Natanz—under IAEA safeguards—also breached Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The IAEA’s 2024 report confirmed Iran’s compliance, making the attack unlawful. The use of bunker-buster bombs caused collateral damage and civilian casualties, violating the principle of proportionality in warfare.
Philosophically, the killings contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and deontological ethics. Targeting scientists infringes on academic freedom and the right to scientific progress as enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Social and ethical consequences
The humanitarian fallout from the attacks was catastrophic. Beyond deaths, the destruction of water and power facilities around Natanz and Isfahan disrupted essential services. The WHO reported hospital equipment failures and patient deaths due to power outages, violating the right to health and water under UN General Assembly Resolution 64/292.
Amnesty International recorded widespread psychological trauma among civilians, including depression and anxiety. Over 5,000 were displaced from areas near Isfahan. These attacks not only harmed individuals but tore communities apart.
Ethicists like Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum argue for the “capabilities approach”—that all people deserve conditions to realize their full potential. The strikes stripped civilians of access to life-sustaining infrastructure and education, contradicting this vision of justice.
Attacking civilians and scientists treated people as means to a political end, violating Kant’s principle that humans must be respected as ends in themselves. The resulting erosion of trust in institutions like the UN and IAEA further destabilized the region, fuelling retaliatory violence and empowering extremist factions.
International responses: condemnation and silence
The strikes elicited widespread international condemnation—but also starkly revealed the persistent double standards that plague global diplomacy. Countries and institutions around the world responded with varying degrees of criticism, concern, or calculated silence, exposing the political fault lines that continue to shape international law and collective action.
The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) promptly denounced the attacks as clear violations of Iran’s territorial sovereignty and as destabilizing acts that threatened the fragile balance of regional peace. Saudi Arabia and Qatar issued strong statements calling for immediate and impartial international investigations, underscoring the need to prevent an escalation of violence and the erosion of diplomatic norms. Similarly, Pakistan, Jordan, and Armenia condemned the strikes, characterizing them as illegal breaches of international law and violations of the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter.
Russia, in one of the most unequivocal and forceful condemnations, labeled the attacks “blatant acts of aggression.” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov went further, contextualizing the strikes within a broader pattern of Western destabilization strategies across the Global South, pointing to prior interventions in Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon as evidence of a systematic disregard for sovereignty and international law when it suits Western interests. Lavrov also demanded the imposition of international sanctions on the perpetrators, calling for urgent Security Council deliberations.
Meanwhile, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)—spearheaded by states like India and South Africa—voiced collective concern over the clear violation of nuclear non-proliferation agreements and reiterated the urgent need for all parties to adhere strictly to established international norms and legal frameworks. NAM’s response reflected a growing consensus among Global South nations that the integrity of multilateralism is at risk when powerful nations act unilaterally and with impunity.
At the institutional level, UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and International Criminal Court (ICC) Prosecutor Karim Khan publicly raised the possibility of war crimes, highlighting violations of the Geneva Conventions, particularly concerning the deliberate targeting of civilian populations and infrastructure. Their statements pointed to the need for an impartial judicial process to determine the extent of culpability and to uphold the norms of international humanitarian law.
However, these calls for justice and accountability were notably undercut by the silence or vague responses of several Western powers, particularly the United Kingdom and France. Their reluctance to issue clear condemnations fueled accusations of hypocrisy and double standards, especially in contrast to their vocal positions on similar incidents involving non-Western states. This selective application of international law has eroded the credibility of Western governments and damaged trust in multilateral mechanisms.
Former Iranian diplomat Hossein Mousavian underscored this point, noting that neither the United Nations Security Council nor the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors issued an official statement addressing the attacks. This silence, he argued, further undermines the legitimacy and moral authority of these institutions, raising questions about their impartiality and willingness to confront violations committed by powerful states.
The selective outrage and muted responses from Western nations have had far-reaching consequences. They have deepened public skepticism regarding the fairness and consistency of global governance structures and reinforced long-standing perceptions of Western bias and geopolitical opportunism. In Europe and the United States, political factions split along predictable lines—some defending the attacks as “defensive measures” grounded in national security, while others chose silence, citing the sensitivities of strategic alliances, electoral considerations, and pressure from domestic lobbies.
This divergence in global responses highlights the urgent need for reforming international institutions to ensure that accountability is not selectively applied. The credibility of multilateralism, the universality of international law, and the moral standing of global governance bodies depend on their ability to apply norms consistently—regardless of the political or military strength of the violator. Without this, the international legal order risks further erosion, and the promise of a rules-based global system becomes little more than a rhetorical device.
Conclusion
The recent attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran—carried out under the pretext of the pre-emptive strike doctrine—not only lack legal legitimacy but also constitute acts of aggression and potential war crimes. These actions, marked by the killing of civilians, the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure, and grave violations of fundamental human rights, stand in direct opposition to international law and universally accepted ethical norms. From a legal standpoint, they contravene Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Ethically, these assaults undermine the principles of human dignity, justice, and self-determination, further fuelling cycles of violence, mistrust, and global instability.
To prevent the recurrence of such violations, the international community must urgently fortify mechanisms of oversight, transparency, and accountability. This includes empowering the International Criminal Court (ICC) to conduct thorough, independent, and timely investigations into alleged war crimes—particularly those involving indiscriminate targeting of civilian areas, such as the bombing of Astaneh-ye Ashrafiyeh. While the UN Security Council often remains gridlocked due to the misuse of veto powers, it is imperative that reforms be introduced to ensure that violations of international law are met with swift and impartial responses, free from geopolitical bias. Furthermore, regional bodies and coalitions, notably the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), must assume a more assertive and principled role in promoting adherence to international law and facilitating diplomatic dialogue aimed at de-escalating tensions.
The doctrine of pre-emptive strike, when employed without incontrovertible evidence of an imminent threat and without rigorous compliance with legal standards, risks devolving into a convenient justification for unilateral aggression and widespread human rights violations. This was clearly demonstrated by the 2025 attacks on Iran, where no credible or transparent justification was presented to the global community.
This article therefore argues for a fundamental reassessment of the pre-emptive strike doctrine within international law and policy. Such a revaluation must include the development of stricter, clearly defined criteria for what constitutes an “imminent threat,” supported by independently verified evidence and subject to multilateral review. Additionally, a renewed global commitment to justice, peace, and human dignity—grounded in ethical frameworks such as those advanced by philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Rawls—must guide future conduct. Ultimately, by reinforcing principles of accountability, sovereignty, and respect for international norms, the global community can begin to dismantle the structures that enable impunity and move toward a more just, secure, and equitable world order.