Provoking Iran raises questions of UN Charter violations and unlawful aggression

As Israeli elections approach, renewed military brinkmanship raises fears of escalation, challenging international law and the UN Charter’s authority.

Days before Israel goes to elections, sabre-rattling against the Islamic regime in Teheran resumed on October 21 , with fighter jets flying close to the Iranian border. This was nothing short of a provocation even though the fighter planes and refuelling aircraft flew turned around after flying over Syria and Iraq.^[1]

Media reports indicated that Israel had given advance information of this act to the US, giving it the cover of a military exercise aimed at deterring Iran.

While tension prevails in the region, Israel’s bellicose move on October 21 was a stark reminder of February 28, 2026, when US-Israel hostilities against Iran began , followed by the bombing of locations where Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other leaders were located. Ali Khamenei was killed and was replaced by his son Mojtaba Khamenei.^[2]

Iran launched retaliatory strikes against US and Israeli military bases in the region, blocked the Strait of Hormuz, crippling supply routes for oil, gas and fertiliser raw material which had a devastating effect on global supplies and led to an energy crisis in the world.^[3]

Armed aggression against a nation state violates its sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the safety of its citizens. Modern international law flowing from the UN Charter recognises this.

Preventing war

The Preamble to the UN Charter seeks to “ save succeeding generations from the scourge of war ” and reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights. It calls for international cooperation to maintain peace and security and provides that armed force should not be used except in the common interest.^[4]

Article 1 lays down the purposes of the UN, including maintaining international peace and security, preventing and suppressing acts of aggression, and settling international disputes by peaceful means in conformity with international law. It also seeks to develop friendly relations among nations based on “equal rights and self-determination of peoples”.^[5]

Article 2 establishes the principles governing these purposes. It recognises the “sovereign equality of all its Members” and requires members to settle disputes peacefully without endangering international peace, security or justice. Article 2(4) requires all members to refrain from “the threat or use of force” against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.^[6]

The UN Security Council is tasked with maintaining international peace and security under Chapters VI and VII of the Charter. The relevant exception to Article 2(4) is Article 51 , which recognises the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a UN member. Measures taken in self-defence must be “immediately reported to the Security Council” and do not affect the Council’s authority to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security.^[7][8]

Self-defence justified

Under Article 51, self-defence can be justified when an armed attack occurs, pending Security Council action, and measures taken in its exercise must be reported immediately.

To justify the commencement of hostilities, the US and Israel have argued that their actions were pursuant to Article 51 because Iran was developing nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, posing a significant threat to their national security and citizens.

They justified their actions as necessary to force regime change and neutralise Iran’s military capabilities. Iran has denied the allegations about developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and justified its military action as self-defence or self-preservation.

On March 11, 2026, the US Ambassador to the UN, Michael G Waltz, wrote to the Security Council justifying the US-Israel action under Article 51. He argued that Iran was developing a ballistic missile shield to accelerate its nuclear capabilities.^[9]

He also cited Iran’s support for proxies such as Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah, which have carried out armed attacks against Israeli and American targets in the region. He claimed that human rights had deteriorated since Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979 and that Trump had made diplomatic efforts to achieve a peaceful solution, but Iran had resisted. He therefore argued that the hostilities were justified as self-preservation.^[10]

The problem with the US argument is that, considering the purposes, structure and framework of the UN Charter, Article 51 requires an armed attack before the Security Council takes measures. The US and Israel did not approach the Security Council to resolve their disputes with Iran before commencing hostilities on February 28.

Iran did not attack either country even as it experienced internal political unrest. Therefore, the grounds put forward by the US and Israel seem specious. Regime change through armed action can only be pursued through the UN mechanism and not independently.

At that time, the US-Israel action seemed patently illegal under international law. Iran’s response, though justifiable, seemed disproportionate.

In this regard, Marko Milanovic argued why the American-Israeli strikes on Iran were manifestly illegal . Besides, in an open letter to the Trump administration, several US academics, NGO leaders and former judge advocates general also claimed that the war breached international law and international humanitarian law, and that Trump and his administration could be found guilty of war crimes.^[11]

Donald Trump’s position and decisions on Iran plunged the globe into turmoil. While the mid-term elections in the US could act as a deterrent for Trump to embark on yet another misadventure against Iran, European and other world leaders must rally to end his unilateralism in the light of the well-recognised principles of the UN Charter. No global power should be able to bully other countries and violate their sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Ashwin Mathew is Associate Professor, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana.

Pranav M R , a thi rd-year student at Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, contributed with research for this article.

Originally published under Creative Commons by 360info .^[12][13]