The U.S.-Israeli joint military operation against Iran is a classic lawful exercise of the inherent right of self-defense.
As Federal Judge George B. Daniels found in his 2011 ruling in the Havlish case, Iran had been waging war against the United States for more than 30 years (now almost 47 years). He held Iran responsible for the terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, which led to the deaths of 2,977 people. The aggression has been continued by the Iranian regime directly or through proxies to date, as detailed here.
Tangible preparations for the current phase of Iran’s war of aggression included naval deployments by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in the Strait of Hormuz; production and deployment of enhanced offensive ballistic missiles and attack drones; hardening of nuclear facilities (such as Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan); activating its proxy Hezbollah; joint exercises with Russia; and swarm attack rehearsals. Moreover, there was the Iranian regime’s illegal offensive nuclear-weapons program (that violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), including at Isfahan and other secret sites, which was at the acute stage of imminent breakout.
These tangible preparations demonstrated capability and readiness for a new phase of war escalation, consistent with its aggressive intentions broadcast to the United States.
Iran’s post-strike escalation confirms just how imminent and potentially destructive the regime’s intended next phase of war would have been had it not been preempted by the timely defensive action of the United States and Israel. Consider, by early March, Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, an international waterway, illegally declaring it a no-go zone for Western ships, attacking tankers and reportedly laying naval mines.
Traffic through the international waterway plummeted, spiking oil prices above $100 a barrel and disrupting approximately 20% of global oil flows. Tehran vowed to maintain the blockade and target neutral shipping. U.S. forces responded by destroying Iranian minelayers and other naval assets in an effort to restore freedom of navigation.
It is submitted that these were grave, time-sensitive threats. The cogent facts justified the invocation of the inherent right of self-defense, which America correctly interprets as including anticipatory self-defense and pre-emptive strikes, as contemplated by the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual (June 2015, updated July 2023). This is especially so during the course of an ongoing conflict of the sort described above, which abrogates any arguable need for fresh imminence for each phase. Furthermore, the reported mining and closure of the strait violated freedom of navigation and neutrality rights, endangering neutrals and global commerce, and triggering collective self-defense for affected states.
The president’s defensive military actions are grounded in legal precedent, such as the Supreme Court’s 1863 decision in the Prize Cases (67 U.S. 635, 1862). The president, as the commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution, has the implicit right to respond to imminent or ongoing threats, without a formal authorization by Congress. Consider, there was no formal declaration of war by Congress for the First and Second Barbary Wars (1801-1805, 1815), Korean war (1950-1953), Vietnam war (1955-1975), war in Laos (1964-1973), post-Sept. 11 conflicts (although there was the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force by Congress) and military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Syria.
Congress’s War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes the president’s inherent right, but seeks to regulate it. Thus, absent a formal congressional declaration of war, the president has 48 hours to notify Congress that military action has been taken and 60 days (extendable to 90) from notification to conclude the military action. Trump timely submitted reports post-strikes, correctly framing them as defensive. The recent aborted congressional effort to end the military action failed to pass, implicitly acquiescing and allowing continuation of the military action until approximately April-May 2026.
It is noteworthy that an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 28 urged de-escalation without blaming Washington or Jerusalem, or labeling their actions illegal under international law.
Instead, Resolution 2817, sponsored by Bahrain on March 11 with 135 co-sponsors, condemned Iranian strikes on the Gulf states and Jordan (by a 13-0 vote, with China and Russia abstaining). It focused on Iran’s escalation while omitting mention of U.S. and Israel airstrikes.
Unchallenged by these resolutions or congressional action, the strikes stand as lawful defensive measures.
