What is the legality of the US and Israeli attacks on Iran?

"Even the doctrine of imminent [threat of] use of force is very controversial. Academics are divided on what it actually means. But in this case, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of an imminent threat by Iran."

"Having blood-curdling rhetoric or threatening violence in and of itself does not give a state the right to use pre-emptive force."

"Under article 51 of the UN charter there is a right to self-defence in response to an armed attack. A broader interpretation of international law has been that a state has a right to use force in response to an imminent threat."

The US and Israeli military strikes on Iran have reignited regional tensions, with the UK indicating potential involvement in defensive operations. Legal experts consulted by the Guardian reached consensus that the initial attacks violated international law. While Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self-defense against armed attacks, and broader interpretations allow force against imminent threats, experts found no credible evidence of an imminent Iranian threat. Israeli President Herzog cited Iran's nuclear program as justification, but Trump's previous claims of destroying Iran's nuclear capability contradicted this rationale. Experts noted that threatening rhetoric alone does not justify preemptive military action. The UK's legal position on collective self-defense remains ambiguous, though it cited Article 51 provisions requiring victim state requests for intervention.

Read at www.theguardian.com