The U.S. Seeks Justifications to Combat Iran; Legal Experts Criticize as "Unconvincing"

On April 25, Xinhua News Agency reported that the U.S. State Department recently issued a statement to justify military action against Iran by the U.S. and Israel starting February 28. U.S. State Department legal advisor Reed Rubinstein stated that the military strike initiated by the U.S. was at the request of its ally and for self-defense, “not the start of a new war, but a continuation of the conflict.” Legal experts believe that the reasons provided by the U.S. are “unconvincing” and that military action against Iran violates the United Nations Charter.

“Quietly” issuing a statement

According to a report by Reuters on the 24th, the U.S. State Department's website published a statement on the 21st titled “Operation 'Epic Fury' and International Law.” Unlike the majority of statements released, the State Department did not send this statement to the media nor did it publish it on its official social media accounts.

In the statement, Rubinstein claimed that “the U.S. became involved in this conflict at the request of its ally Israel, as part of collective defense and in exercising the U.S. right to self-defense.” He stated that the conflict erupted due to Iran’s “malicious aggression over decades,” including attacks by Iran-backed armed forces on U.S. and Israeli troops, Iran's missile launch towards Israel in April 2024, and Iran’s “pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Iran has consistently denied the allegations of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, emphasizing its right to peacefully utilize nuclear energy.

Rubinstein asserted that the military actions taken by the U.S. and Israel against Iran at the end of February were “part of a prolonged confrontation with Iranian armed conflicts,” and there was no need to assess whether Iran was about to strike the U.S. or its allies at that time. He also stated that “since the actions began at the end of February, the U.S. has been fulfilling its obligations under international law regarding the use of force.”

It is noteworthy that the U.S. government officially informed Congress of the military strike against Iran on March 2, with a 60-day period until May 1. According to the War Powers Act passed by the U.S. Congress in 1973, the U.S. President has a 60-day limit to deploy troops without congressional approval, after which any ongoing conflict must be terminated unless authorized by Congress. If the President deems it necessary to continue troop deployment, he can provide a written explanation to Congress for a 30-day extension, and this 30-day period is limited to the safe withdrawal of troops and cannot involve continued offensive military actions.

Unconvincing

In fact, the reasons for the U.S. strike against Iran are not as grand as Rubinstein claims.

Brian Finucane, a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group's U.S. Project and former legal advisor at the U.S. State Department, analyzed in an article for the “Just Security” online magazine that Rubinstein's arguments are “legally unconvincing,” and “this flawed and overly permissive defense may further weaken the legal constraints on the use of force.”

Gregory Meeks, a Democratic member of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, bluntly stated that the State Department's statement is a “delayed and feeble legal argument,” asserting that “the President must comply with U.S. domestic law and international law and terminate the war of his choosing.”

Over 100 international law experts in the U.S. issued a joint open letter on the 2nd of this month, pointing out that the U.S. military action against Iran may constitute a war crime. The experts wrote in the letter that, despite the Trump administration providing various and even contradictory reasons, there is no evidence that Iran poses an imminent threat to the U.S. that would justify the exercise of self-defense. They urged the U.S. government to comply with the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law, calling on U.S. allies and partners to also adhere to international law and not to assist the illegal actions of the U.S. and Israel.

Robert Goldman, a war crimes expert at American University Washington College of Law, emphasized that the U.S. frequently initiates wars and disregards international law, which may backfire in the future. “This could cause trouble for the U.S. itself in the future.” (Bao Xuelin)