Introduction
The procured hostility between Iran and Israel has emerged as one of the most volatile fault lines in contemporary Middle East politics. Israel has emerged as an aggressor in the region, continuously violating the sovereignty of Middle Eastern nations. Once rooted in deep-seated ideological differences, Israel’s genocidal and aggressive acts have led to proxy wars and now a direct military confrontation between the two countries. While much of the discourse surrounding the Iran-Israel war is framed through the prism of security and strategic analysis, some often under-examined questions regarding the role of international law have resurfaced. This article will examine the Iran-Israel war through a dual perspective of international law and international relations.
Timeline of Escalation
The Iran-Israel war has resulted in deep military escalations. On June 13, 2025, Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion” and attacked Iranian nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow using F-35 stealth fighter jets. Iran retaliated by launching the operation “True Promise III” using over 150 ballistic missiles and 100 drones across multiple waves, targeting Tel Aviv, Bat Yam, Herzliya, and Jerusalem. On June 14, 2025, another wave of Israel’s attack killed nine nuclear scientists, and on June 15, Israel’s missile strikes in western Iran killed the IRGC aerospace commander. On June 16 and 17, Iran launched ~20 missiles targeting central and northern Israel. On 19 June, Iran fired a Sejjil missile at a military base adjacent to the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba.
On 22 June, the US stepped in and launched Operation Midnight Hammer. The US used its B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles to strike Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan with bunker busters. The US claimed to have heavily damaged Iran’s nuclear facilities. On 23 June 2025, Iran launched “Operation Glad Tidings of Victory” and fired six missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. After that, Donald Trump announced a phased ceasefire between Iran and Israel. On June 24, the ceasefire was accepted by Iran.
An Analysis through the Lens of International Law
The unprovoked attack on Iran has once again raised a question about the importance and the effectiveness of international law. Undoubtedly, in the global legal order, international law is a tool for a weaker state, yet it is necessary for differentiating black from white. Without international law, the differentiation of an aggressor from a victim wouldn’t be possible. Yet, the open and repeated violations of international law have eroded its enforceability and credibility around the world.
According to the UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), aggressive acts include “the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state.” The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) also recognizes aggression as one of the “most serious crimes of concern to the international community.” Under both of these laws, Israel is an aggressor that unilaterally conducted preemptive strikes against Iran. Israel’s attack does not qualify under Article 51 of the UN charter, as the attack was neither proportionate nor necessary.
First and foremost, Israel violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter that protects the territorial and political sovereignty of states by committing aggression and plotting a regime change in Iran. Next, the military commanders of Iran were killed by attacking civilian sites. Under the IHL, an attack on civilians, along with persons hors de combat (out of combat), is an act of terrorism and attracts the legal prohibition of the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997, of which both the US and Israel are parties.
Under Article 50 of the Additional Protocol I (of 1977) to the Geneva Convention, nuclear scientists are classified as civilians and are entitled to protection from military operations like all other civilians, yet Israel targeted them under the guise of military necessity.
Moreover, Iran is a signatory to the 1970s Non-Proliferation (NPT) and has always been open to IAEA inspections. Lack of violations on Iran’s part shows that Israel is the terrorist state, openly breaching international law and violating its neighbours’ sovereignty. Therefore, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran retains the legal right to proportionate and necessary retaliatory action.
An Analysis from an International Relations Perspective
The Iran-Israel war has once again reaffirmed Israel’s position as a regional aggressor, actively pushing the region towards instability. Israel, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, appeared to pursue four core objectives:
- Reasserting Israeli Deterrence and Regional Dominance
- Neutralizing Iran’s nuclear capability
- Bringing regime change in Tehran
- Curtailing Iran’s regional influence
The first major objective of Israel was to reassert its deterrence in the region to deter its Iran-supported proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Arab nations against Israel. This objective is not fully achieved and is strategically ambiguous. The attack has presented Israel as an aggressor. Moreover, despite the ceasefire, a cold war between Iran and Israel is highly expected. The attack will trigger a wave of retaliatory attacks from Israel’s proxies, and it will mobilize a bigger retaliation against Israel. Through the international relations lens, it is a perfect example of power projection. Therefore, the first objective of Israel seems to have backfired and failed.
The next objective on President Netanyahu’s list was to neutralize Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Tel Aviv launched an attack aiming to dismantle Iran’s uranium enrichment sites at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. Moreover, President Trump also joined in on this combined objective without congressional assent and used the B-2 bombers and bunker busters to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities. However, no verifiable evidence of nuclear fallout or radiation has been found from the sites, which further strengthens Iran’s stance that they had relocated their nuclear assets before the attack.
From an international relations perspective, it shows offensive realism in action, where states unilaterally attack other sovereign states to neutralize threats. The lack of success reinforces the security state dilemma and will push Iran to actively pursue its nuclear programs and might even withdraw from the NPT and IAEA inspection. This objective backfired and further escalated the threat Israel and the U.S. were trying to eliminate.
The third objective was to engineer a regime change in Tehran by provoking internal dissent against the supreme leader, Imam Khamenei’s government. However, rather than dividing the society into fragments and leading to a regime change, the people of Iran showed great resilience. Iranian society displayed unity against the aggressor, and the anti-Israel rhetoric gained more popularity, and even the reformists’ voices aligned with the state’s anti-Zionist agendas.
Through the lens of the constructive theory, the spirit of nationalism and religious identity trumped rational cost-benefit analysis, rendering regime change a flawed expectation. This objective failed as well, and Israel’s and the US regime change expectations seem to be based on a flawed understanding of Iranian society and politics.
The last objective of Tel Aviv was to curtail Iran’s regional influence by diffusing the “Axis of Resistance,” comprising Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. For this purpose, the US even used its bases in Qatar to carry out military attacks on Iranian soil. Iran retaliated by striking the US airbases in Qatar. The Muslim ummah that was fragmented along Shia-Sunni conflicts was once again united and openly supported Iran. Therefore, Iran’s influence in the region has increased tremendously. The neo-realist emphasis on power balancing explains how even non-state actors contribute to Iran’s strategic resilience. This objective, too, yielded counterproductive results. Therefore, Israel was unable to properly achieve any of its objectives, and Iran indeed had an upper hand in the clash.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, this war is an example of the selective implementation and politicization of international law. Not only does Israel keep on setting dangerous precedents for the world, but its acts have left international law and international humanitarian law in tatters. Through an IR perspective, Israel’s four-pronged strategy has yielded limited tactical gains but significant strategic setbacks. This uncalculated act might push the Middle East towards a cold war and more regional instability. Iran has gained strategic dominance over Israel and the US, proving that power without legitimacy breeds instability.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please visit the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Areeba Imran is a third-year law student at Pakistan College of Law with a focused interest in constitutional law, environmental law, and the emerging field of space law. She serves as the general secretary of the Environment and Law Society and has interned at the Advocate General’s Office. Through her writing, Areeba aims to contribute to nuanced legal discourse on both national and global platforms.