Trump and Netanyahu's attack on Iran is an illegal act of aggression | Kenneth Roth

"Donald Trump's and Benjamin Netanyahu's military attack on Iran is an illegal act of aggression. There is no lawful justification for it. It is no different from Russian president Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine or Rwandan president Paul Kagame's invasion of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The United Nations charter allows the use of military force in only two circumstances: with authorization of the UN security council, or as self-defense from an actual or imminent armed attack."

"In his video justification for the war, Trump spoke of Iran's imminent threat, but there is no evidence to support it. He recited a litany of past attacks that he attributed to Iran, but none of them is ongoing or imminent. At best Trump sought to prevent future harm—Netanyahu used the term pre-emptive—but prevention is no justification for war because it would open Pandora's box to countless armed conflicts."

"To prevent future threats, governments must resort to diplomacy combined with non-military forms of pressure. Iran is already subject to comprehensive sanctions, but Trump and Netanyahu cut diplomacy short because they didn't seem to want to accept yes for an answer. With each leader facing political challenges at home as elections approach, they appeared all too eager to bomb Iran."

The military action against Iran by Trump and Netanyahu constitutes illegal aggression under international law, comparable to Putin's invasion of Ukraine. The UN Charter permits military force only through Security Council authorization or self-defense against actual or imminent armed attacks. Trump's justification citing imminent threats lacks evidence; his cited past Iranian attacks are neither ongoing nor imminent. Prevention of future harm does not justify war under international law, as it would enable countless conflicts. Diplomacy combined with non-military pressure represents the appropriate response. Despite Iran's existing comprehensive sanctions and apparent openness to inspections and uranium dilution, negotiations were abandoned. Political pressures from approaching elections appeared to motivate military action over diplomatic resolution.

Read at www.theguardian.com