War against Iran US attack on nuclear facilities – what does international law say?

War against Iran US attack on nuclear facilities – what does international law say?
===================================================================================

analysis

The US has attacked nuclear facilities in Iran. Experts say that this is hardly justifiable under international law. An analysis.

By Michael-Matthias Nordhardt and Christoph Kehlbach, ARD Legal Department

[This article posted on 6/22/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerika/us-angriff-voelkerrecht-100.html.]



The US has intervened in the war between Israel and Iran and deliberately targeted nuclear facilities in Iran. US President Donald Trump spoke of “very successful attacks” in a text message on his social media service “Truth Social” during the night.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has also praised the attacks as an “overwhelming success.” However, under international law, states are fundamentally obliged to treat each other peacefully. The legal basis for this can be found in the Charter of the United Nations (UN).

### US government after attacks: “No war against Iran, but against its nuclear program”

US Vice President Vance emphasizes after the attacks that the goal is not regime change in Iran. more

Prohibition of violence under international law
-----------------------------------------------

According to this, the prohibition of violence under international law applies. Article 2 states literally:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

This means that UN members may not simply attack other UN members militarily. There is only one exception to this prohibition of force: the right to self-defense.

UN Charter allows self-defense
------------------------------

This is also expressly mentioned in the UN Charter. Article 51 states:

This Charter shall not impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.

A state may therefore use military means if it is itself attacked. Legitimate acts of defense then also include strikes against military targets on the territory of the attacking state.

Narrow limits for “preemptive self-defense”
-------------------------------------------

A state may also defend itself against an imminent attack if no other means are available. This is what international law experts call “preemptive self-defense,” Professor Pierre Thielbörger from the Bochum Institute for International Peace Law and Humanitarian Law told the ARD legal editorial team last week.

“However, ‘preventive self-defense’ against a merely possible future attack that is not yet imminent is inadmissible,” said the international law expert.

No evidence of an attack planned by Iran
----------------------------------------

The decisive factor in determining whether a state may invoke its right to self-defense is therefore: Was an attack imminent? And how concrete was the danger?

In the case of the US attacks on Iran, it would therefore have to be examined whether Iran was on the verge of attacking the US. However, as far as can be seen, there is currently no reliable evidence of this.

Against this background, international law expert Jochen von Bernstorff described the US attacks to the news agency dpa today as “clearly illegal.” He said: “I see little room for justification under international law.”

Player: videoUSA attacks nuclear facilities in Iran: No radioactive radiation released

June 22, 2025

### Iranian nuclear facilities What is known about the US attack

The US has attacked Iranian nuclear facilities earlier than expected. What is known about this? More

Support for Israel's self-defense?
----------------------------------

Article 51 of the UN Charter refers not only to the “individual” right to self-defense, but also to the “collective” right to self-defense. This means that it is entirely compatible with international law to provide military support to another state in its self-defense against an attack.

However, this requires that the other state is actually in a situation of self-defense. In other words, if one wanted to interpret the US attacks as legitimate support for Israel, this would only be possible if Israel itself could invoke the right of self-defense against Iran.

Player: video “Israel has driven the US into this conflict,” Nicole Deitelhoff, Leibniz Institute for Peace and Conflict Research, on the US attack

interview June 22, 2025

### Escalation in the Middle East “Israel has driven the US into the conflict”

With the US intervention in Iran, conflict researcher Deitelhoff sees the world order and international law hanging in the balance. more

International law experts skeptical
-----------------------------------

However, the majority of international law experts in Germany did not and do not see Israel's right to self-defense against Iran – neither at the beginning of the Israeli bombardment on June 13 nor at present.

For example, former Federal Constitutional Court judge Andreas Paulus said in an interview with Legal Tribune Online (LTO): “The explicit latent threat to Israel from the mullah regime must be taken seriously, but it is not sufficient on its own to justify self-defense.”

International law expert Pierre Thielbörger assessed the situation similarly: “Israel's attacks are still within the realm of preventive self-defense, which international law does not recognize in order not to undermine the prohibition of violence between states that actually applies,” he told the ARD legal editorial team.

Player: videoBernd Rasem, ARD-aktuell, on the military conflict between Israel and Iran

analysis June 17, 2025

### Attacks by Israel and Iran What is permitted under international law – and what is not?

Israel attacks Iran – and declares it a preemptive strike. Tehran bombs Israeli cities. more

Nuclear facilities under attack
-------------------------------

In their attacks, the US has deliberately targeted only Iranian nuclear facilities. Even if military strikes are – exceptionally – permissible under international law, such facilities enjoy special protection.

The Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1977, stipulates that nuclear power plants may not be attacked even if they are military targets “if such an attack would release dangerous forces and thereby cause severe losses among the civilian population.”

Special protection for nuclear power plants
-------------------------------------------

An exception to this prohibition is only possible under very strict conditions. Namely, if a nuclear power plant “supplies electrical power for the regular, significant, and immediate support of acts of war, and if such an attack is the only practical means of ending this support.”

This category includes facilities used for uranium enrichment for military purposes, said international law professor Christoph Safferling from the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg in an interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung.

“Then, under international law, it is to be regarded as an arms factory, i.e., a legitimate target in war.” However, the prerequisite would remain that military strikes would be justified in the specific situation, i.e., that a situation of permissible self-defense exists.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


- For the attention of the interested global public:
- 1. The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, has made it clear that there is NO Iranian nuclear weapons program and NO immediate threat from Iran.
- 2. The Washington Post reveals to the world that the Israeli attack on Iran had been planned for months and decided in March. And that it had NOTHING to do with Iran's (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.
- 3. The US military strike against Iran, which was deemed legal, illegal, or whatever, is not only more contrary to international law than we already thought, but also joins the long list of US military actions that use untruths as a pretext and lies to legitimize military force that they have long been determined to use for entirely different reasons.
- 4. And yes: politicians and the media spread these lies and manipulate you in order to prevent you from forming your own opinion.
- Source: Martin Sonneborn via Twitter/X


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Netanyahu decided on Iran war last year, then sought to recruit TrumpQuelle: Washington Post (Bezahlschranke)und: Eine völkerrechtliche Einordnung des bisherigen Krieges zwischen Israel, USA und dem IranQuelle: NachDenkSeiten

The EU’s pathetic response to Trump’s Iran attack

Europe jettisoned its principles to suck up to a president that doesn’t even know they exist

The European Union’s response to the U.S. strikes on Iran Saturday has exposed more than just hypocrisy — it has revealed a vassalization so profound that the European capitals now willingly undermine both international law and their own strategic interests.

The statement by the E3, signed by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and French President Emmanuel Macron, following similar statements by the president of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and its high representative for foreign affairs Kaja Kallas, perfectly encapsulates this surrender.

Quelle: Responsible Statecraftdazu: Nato chief Mark Rutte praises Donald Trump for making Europe ‘pay in a BIG way’Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte has praised Donald Trump for making Europe “pay in a BIG way” on increased defence spending, in a private message that the US president shared on his social media platform.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Rutte's flattery is promptly published “Congratulations,” “extraordinary,” “your victory”: NATO Secretary General Rutte showered Trump with praise in a message. The US president promptly published the flattery. Source: tagesschauComment by André Tautenhahn: Six years ago, the French president said that NATO was brain dead. Today, Europeans are using the military arm of US foreign policy to demonstrate their subservience in the hope of still being allowed to play a role. Glenn Diesen writes aptly: “European leaders and their struggle for the privilege of being American vassals.”And: Dick in business!If anyone out there is interested in what the pure ass-kissing of a proud European looks like these days, voilà. Source: Martin Sonneborn via Twitter/X

Israel-Iran war divides the US

As Donald Trump sets the course for a possible war against Iran in the Situation Room, the US is facing not only a foreign policy showdown, but also an ideological civil war. From progressive critics of Israel such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to right-wing isolationists such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, an unexpected alliance is forming against a new “eternal war.” But while Thierry Meyssan speaks of a scandalous cover-up and a former CIA analyst warns of a false flag attack, the nation faces a question: Can a divided America survive the contradictions of its foreign policy?

Source: GlobalbridgeOn this topic: “Israel has driven the US into the conflict.” And the moment you obscure that and pretend it's legal to wage this war, you permanently relinquish any instrument to criticize others for possibly engaging in wars of aggression. Think of Russia in Ukraine, for example. Of course, these are different situations and there are different reasons for these wars of aggression, but both are wars of aggression. And the moment we no longer want to apply the law to ourselves, but only to others, it will no longer apply to anyone.Source: tagesschau See also: Exclusive: Early US intel assessment suggests strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites, sources sayThe US military strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it.Source: CNNand: Between diplomacy and failureBy entering the war, the US is making a new nuclear agreement with Iran a distant prospect. […]This military escalation, accompanied by mutual threats, puts an end, for the time being, to new diplomatic initiatives aimed at bringing Iran's nuclear program back under international control. Against the backdrop of this escalation, how realistic is the resumption of negotiations or a new nuclear agreement? Which actors are influencing the process — and what will happen if it fails? Source: Manova

Inside the mind of Benjamin Netanyahu

As the Israeli prime minister's bodyguard, I saw him transform into the gangster he is today.

Source: The New StatesmanSee also: Three uncomfortable facts about Israel's war on civilization that you won't hear from the mainstream mediaAnd all this time you thought Israel was fighting something called “Hamas”! Poor people, what else could you have thought when all the US news agencies, “experts” and commentators were telling you the same thing? But they lied.They told you Israel was waging a “war.” They lied. What Israel is doing in Gaza is not a “war.” It is genocide. Source: Antikriegund: Hunger that defeats language “The hunger I am experiencing is not what I imagined. It is not what you imagine, dear reader.” A lyrical text from Gaza.I didn't start writing as a writer. It was never my intention to identify with this profession or to acquire a literary identity. I wrote simply because writing gave me air to breathe. It allowed me to shape my day, to structure overwhelming emotions, and to temporarily carve out a space of silence from the endless chaos. Writing was not a window on the world, but a window on myself. And as language grew within me, I felt that I had finally found a friend on this brutal planet, one who listened to me without turning away, who made me feel that I could escape the world for a short time. I never expected that this friend would one day fall silent. Not because I no longer wanted to write, but because I could no longer do so. And the reason for that? I am starving. Source: medico

Freedom of expression at Gaza demonstrations – Council of Europe reprimands Germany

The Council of Europe has expressed concern about the actions of the German authorities during demonstrations against the Gaza war and pro-Palestinian rallies. It also said that Germany had interpreted some criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism. The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, warned against serious interference with freedom of expression and assembly.

Source: BR24Related: “From the River to the Sea”: Acquittal after banned Palestine slogan in BerlinThe slogan “From the River to the Sea” is banned as a supposed Hamas symbol. A student charged with this offense has now been acquitted. Source: taz

War reporting: The simulation of balance

How often does one side have its say, how often the other? Questions like these are always at the forefront when media scholars examine the balance of journalistic reporting in the context of political conflicts. The Tagesschau news program on June 14, 2025, showed both the situation of Israeli civilians after an Iranian missile attack and the situation of Iranian civilians after an Israeli missile attack. Both sides have their say – good conditions for being labeled “balanced.” But while the public broadcaster suggests balance, it simultaneously counteracts it through certain techniques designed to control emotions. Viewers experience the effect without being aware of the techniques.

Source: Overton MagazineComment from our reader S.F.: Here is a brief, concrete example of how our media manipulates us. Well explained. The trick is always the same, whereby one side is presented and the other is not given a voice at all. This shows that you have to listen carefully and be aware of the choice of words, otherwise you will fall for these people's tricks.

The state and its budget: Who will fill the demand gap?

The federal government is in the process of passing its first budget. The program agreed upon by the CDU/CSU and SPD is to be translated into figures. But anyone trying to get an overview of the magnitudes, the shifts from the previous budget, the debt rules, and the budget's impact on economic development quickly loses track. This usually leads to a fixation on details.

But this is not about trivialities. With a federal budget of €4.3 trillion this year, embedded in a total government budget of around €2.2 trillion, the state plays a decisive role in shaping economic development. After two years of stagnation, this government wants to spark new growth momentum.

But how can this be achieved? Even the biggest players on the stage need to have an idea of what the economy is lacking. But this is where opinions differ. The government is banking on tax relief for companies and less bureaucracy to have a stimulating effect. But that is a fallacy. Individual measures fizzle out if the overall approach is wrong.