In the early hours of February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched what President Trump known as a “massive and ongoing” navy marketing campaign towards Iran—codenamed Operation Epic Fury by the Pentagon and Operation Roaring Lion by Israel. Trump posted an eight-minute video to Truth Social at 2:30 am Eastern time, describing the operation as an effort to eliminate what he known as “imminent threats” from “a wicked, radical dictatorship”. He urged Iranian civilians to “take over your government”.
By night, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was lifeless—killed within the opening part of the strikes, in accordance with Israeli officers and later confirmed by Iranian state media, which introduced 40 days of nationwide mourning. Iran retaliated by firing drones and missiles at Israeli targets and US bases throughout the Gulf. At least 201 civilians have been reported killed in Iran, in accordance with the Red Crescent, with 747 injured.
The strikes are greater than a regional occasion. They are a direct challenge to the post-1945 worldwide order constructed on regulation and diplomacy, and to the boundaries the US Constitution locations on presidential war-making.
A breach of the UN Charter
The UN Charter was written particularly to restrain using power. Article 2(4) prohibits navy motion towards one other state’s territorial integrity or political independence, besides with Security Council authorisation or in real self-defence beneath Article 51, which allows power solely in response to an precise armed assault.
In June 2025, UN human rights specialists warned that “anticipatory” self-defence towards a non-imminent menace is illegal, cautioning that expansive pre-emptive doctrine would revive an period of “might is right” that the post-war order was meant to stop. The International Commission of Jurists reached related conclusions relating to earlier US and Israeli strikes.
The February 2026 operation follows a protracted chain of precedents which have progressively stretched these limits. NATO’s 1999 Kosovo marketing campaign, performed with out Security Council authorisation, was extensively considered unlawful regardless of humanitarian justifications. The 2003 invasion of Iraq cited imminent threats that proved unfounded. The post-9/11 decade entrenched the sample: US drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia—usually with out host-state consent or UN approval—have been justified as counterterrorism or self-defence. Each occasion, described as distinctive, grew to become a precedent for the subsequent.
The February 2026 strikes observe the identical logic, putting energy above the regulation, eroding what authorized students have known as the “grammar of restraint” solid after the Second World War.
Shiite Muslims maintain a picture of Ayatollah Khamenei throughout a protest towards the US and Israel, in Jammu on March 1, 2026.
| Photo Credit:
Channi Anand/AP
At the centre of this decline is the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence. Article 51 permits power solely in response to an armed assault. Customary worldwide regulation, crystallised within the Nineteenth-century Caroline method, confined self-defence to threats which are “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means.”
Over time, the which means of “imminence” has expanded. The 2002 US National Security Strategy argued that grave or unconventional threats would possibly justify putting first—a rationale later invoked in Iraq and echoed in Trump’s justification for the present marketing campaign. The International Court of Justice has constantly taken a narrower view of what constitutes an “armed attack”, and lots of worldwide regulation students reject using power based mostly on conjectural dangers.
If the expanded doctrine turns into settled apply, states might cite anticipated threats—missile deployments, shifting alliances, navy modernisation—as grounds for assault, making the Charter’s prohibition conditional slightly than absolute.
People collect on the shrine of Imam Reza to mourn the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in Mashhad, Iran, on March 1, 2026.
| Photo Credit:
Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcast/ANI
Legal criticism of the strikes has not been confined to Western capitals. Across the Global South, governments rejected the authorized foundation superior by Washington and Tel Aviv. The Chairperson of the African Union, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, mentioned the operation marked “a serious intensification of hostilities” and known as on all events to behave “fully in accordance with international law and the United Nations Charter.” South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa mentioned the assaults “violated international law”, noting that “anticipatory self-defence is not permitted under international law. “ Cuba’s President Miguel Díaz-Canel called the strikes “a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter”. Malaysia’s Foreign Ministry mentioned using power breached the Charter’s prohibition and known as for disputes to be settled by diplomacy.
For many states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the Charter’s restraints will not be rhetorical commitments however structural safeguards. If highly effective states could unilaterally redefine imminence to swimsuit their strategic pursuits, the authorized protections on which smaller states rely develop into contingent on political alignment slightly than precept.
Tense historical past
Iran’s trendy period is scarred by overseas interference. In 1953, the CIA—with British backing—staged a coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran’s democratically elected chief. The Shah’s repressive rule that adopted bred resentment of the West and contributed to the circumstances that produced the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The brutal 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, triggered by Saddam Hussein’s invasion, killed an estimated a million folks and devastated each societies, a battle wherein many Western governments equipped arms to Baghdad.
The 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, justified by claims about weapons of mass destruction that have been by no means discovered, produced tens of hundreds of civilian deaths, ignited sectarian battle, and left the area much less steady than earlier than.
Also Read | Iran and the moral blind spots of global politics
By distinction, the 2015 Iran nuclear accord, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or “Iran nuclear deal”, was a product of sustained multilateral negotiation. It froze Iran’s nuclear programme in change for sanctions aid. When the US withdrew in 2018, critics warned that discarding a purposeful, if imperfect, settlement would isolate Washington and invite renewed nuclear competitors. The February 2026 strikes—launched solely weeks after a recent spherical of US-Iran talks in Geneva, performed beneath Omani and European mediation—confirmed that warning.
Bombs can destroy infrastructure, however they not often produce steady governance. History suggests they extra usually strengthen the forces they purpose to remove.
Constitutional query
The February 2026 strikes additionally strained the US Constitution’s personal limits. Article 1 vests the ability to declare battle solely in Congress. The White House notified the bipartisan “Gang of Eight”—senior congressional leaders and intelligence committee heads—shortly earlier than the operation started, however didn’t search formal authorisation.
The constitutional objection isn’t new. When the US joined Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear amenities in June 2025, the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] wrote to the White House making clear that “only Congress can authorize the use of military force against Iran.” Rep. Lateefah Simon of Oakland known as that earlier bombing “lawless, dangerous, and immoral.” Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned Trump had “ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization.” Those arguments apply with equal power to the February 2026 marketing campaign.
After the newest strikes, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Ro Khanna of California moved a bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ban sustained hostilities in Iran with out congressional approval. House Democratic leaders mentioned they’d convey it to a vote.
Diplomatic breakdown
The timing is notable. The newest strikes got here solely weeks after renewed US-Iran negotiations in Geneva, the newest effort at a negotiated settlement of disputes over Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes. Force didn’t complement these talks; it ended them.
What is misplaced isn’t solely a single spherical of negotiations however the circumstances that make negotiation potential: the expectation that disputes will likely be resolved by dialogue slightly than sudden violence, and that agreements, as soon as reached, will maintain.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres speaks throughout a United Nations Security Council assembly, after the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, on the UN headquarters in New York City on February 28, 2026.
| Photo Credit:
Heather Khalifa/Reuters
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, talking at an emergency Security Council session on the day of the strikes, known as the escalation “a grave threat to international peace and security” and warned that navy motion risked “igniting a chain of events that no one can control.” Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected what he known as “the unilateral military action by the United States and Israel,” demanding fast de-escalation. Russia described the strikes as “a pre-planned and unprovoked act of aggression.” China known as for dialogue and a halt to navy motion.
If power alone turns into the measure of worldwide disputes, the constructions of collective safety ( the UN Charter, multilateral regulation, negotiated agreements ) lose their objective. The query now could be whether or not the strikes produce the steadiness their architects declare to hunt, or whether or not historical past’s report of such interventions holds.
Inside Iran
Khamenei had no declared successor. Under the structure, a provisional council—comprising the president, the judiciary chief, and a Guardian Council member—holds authority whereas the 88-member Assembly of Experts selects a everlasting alternative “as soon as possible.” President Masoud Pezeshkian and Judiciary Chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei sit on the interim council; the third seat was unconfirmed as of Sunday.
Also Read | Will Iran’s revolutionary project survive its perfect storm?
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] will form the result. The Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] famous that eradicating Khamenei “is not the same as regime change—the IRGC is the regime.” CIA assessments produced earlier than the strikes concluded that hardline IRGC figures have been the almost certainly beneficiaries of any transition. Historical precedent in Iran means that exterior assault tends to consolidate slightly than weaken entrenched energy.
The CFR recognized three potential trajectories: managed regime continuity, a navy takeover, or systemic collapse. Which prevails will decide whether or not the operation produces the result its architects intend.
The author is a legislative and coverage researcher and LAMP Fellow 2024-25 at PRS Legislative Research.
