Israel's attack on Iran: Legality of an anticipatory self-defense attack under international law.

Introduction

The recent profound attack by Israel was based on the findings of the report, which states that Iran’s 60% enriched uranium is capable and on the verge of making 9 nuclear weapons. Israel, having trepidation based on this report, launched a plethora of airstrikes, which resulted in the '12-day war'.

The contention as to what constitutes an “armed attack” is the one where the missiles were launched by Israel, hitting nuclear sites, and not the one where Iran strikes back at Israel. While Israel claimed its attack was a right to self-defense on the assumption of imminent harm, there was no evidence that Iran was planning to attack Israel upon completing the development of a nuclear weapon in the near future. The attack by Israel has no legality under any aspect of international law and is not in consonance with the concept of jus ad bellum, with no right intention. Israel has attested casus belli for attacking Iran regarding its nuclear threat, where this attack was seen as unprovoked aggression by Israel. 

Therefore, in retaliation, Iran turned the tables by attacking US base in Qatar under the realm of self-defense which is deemed to be legal in the eyes of UN International law under article 51 of the UN Charter of 1945 because it was triggered only when Israel, with the help of US, has commissioned an “armed attack” against Iran. Diving deep into Iran's foreign policy and the strained relationship between Israel and Iran will only foster biased remarks against Iran; rather, the focus is solely on determining the legal aspects of the act between the two nations under international law.

Demystifying Iran’s uranium enrichment danger

It was affirmed by Iran Watch that Iran has accumulated uranium above 60% (approx. 90%), which is essential to make a few nuclear warheads. However, Iran’s contention regarding enrichment was that it was a part of civilian peaceful purposes, which is derived from Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As prescribed by the IAEA Statute, the agency should first have made the arrangements to stop or put away the use of the equipment provided by the agency. This action could further instill the emotion of fear in the mind of Iran to not pursue the enrichment of uranium. The initial stages of Iran's uranium enrichment started when the US withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), 2015, where, in retaliation, Iran started to resist compliance with the agreement. 

Iran’s uranium enrichment and working on its technological advancement on nuclear weapons will also produce nations' pride and dignity in the eyes of the world, and to become the 10th country that possesses nuclear weapons. 

Fathoming Israel’s legality of its vociferous attack

The Caroline Doctrine proposed by Daniel Webster, which is a principle under customary international law, requires states to act in self-defense only under the pretext of having “a necessity of self-defense, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”. Israel cannot claim its pre-emptive attack to be legal under this doctrine, as there was no imminent and overwhelming threat due to the accumulation of uranium. Israel could have raised the point of security concern by way of talks with its diplomats and with the stakeholders of nuclear weapons treaties. 

In the first place, the attack which obliterated all three nuclear facilities violated Article 56 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Convention that prohibits attack on works and installations containing dangerous forces, in essence, nuclear power plants in this scenario, which could pose serious damage to civilians by producing harmful chemicals from the plant.  

Israel’s surprising "Operation Red Wedding" undermines its legality of employment of nuclear strikes against nuclear sites. This operation successfully concluded the assassination of Iran’s highest military commanders and a proficient nuclear scientist, giving another aspect of targeted killings and voicing it as an active self-defense measure. Not only does it have no sort of legality, but it has also violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter by exercising force against another state, i.e., Iran. 

In addition, Israel also contravenes the principle of proportionality by not taking proportionate steps to lower the danger of proliferation of uranium that resulted in civilian casualties. Israel was stuck in the loop of the doctrine of preemptive self-defence, as there was no imminent harm, and the attack led to unjustified widespread destruction. The dominion should have considered the aspect of the doctrine of necessity to exhaust all necessary lawful measures with Iran relating to diplomatic talks, signing new treaties, filing complaints, or imposing sanctions. This further contravenes Article 2(3) of the UN Charter by not resorting to peaceful means to resolve the issue.

The United States also had a profound role in stirring the matter between the two nations and enforcing persecution of war while walking on a fine line – firstly, proposing 60 day ultimatum to Iran to conclude the deal with US, secondly, calling for an 'unconditional surrender' as the war mushrooms, and thirdly by bombarding the three Iranian nuclear sites under Operation Midnight Hammer. Now, the US is being left with to use 'collective self-defence' as its defence tactics for assisting Israel during the war and using its armed forces. 

However, with escalating tensions between the two nations, Iran may have veered towards the concept of reprisal under international law as a response to previous attacks by Israel and the US, by attacking its major cities and bases in Qatar, respectively. Iran might have discovered the negative aspect of the principle of reciprocity under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) for doing the worst to Israel in response to what Iran has received from the same. 

Aftermath of the attack

IAEA’s false presumption on this mainstream event instigates the state to pass the law to suspend cooperation with IAEA. If further persuaded by other allied nations, then Iran could have waged a wide-scale war, resulting in an act of genocide with the help of its terror proxies (such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis), also known as the axis of resistance. There should be a call on Israel to refrain from such attacks in the future, on the misappropriation of facts of impending danger from other nations. The United Nations Security Council also pushed that diplomacy should prevail to decrease the risk of wider war that has engulfed it.