Context & Objective: The military aggression launched by Israel against Iran on June 13 2025 under the operation named Rising Lion represents a significant challenge to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force in international law. This article examines the background of these attacks which targeted Iranian military nuclear and civilian infrastructure resulting in substantial casualties and damage to essential services. The discussion outlines the legal justifications provided by Israeli officials who primarily invoked the doctrines of self-defense and preemptive defense. The research purpose is to evaluate the legitimacy of this military intervention against established international legal frameworks and judicial precedents. Specifically, the study addresses research questions regarding whether the attack constitutes a violation of Iranian territorial sovereignty and whether the claims of self-defense align with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter or the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice.
Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal research method combined with a descriptive-analytical approach to assess the legality of the military action. The analysis is based on primary international legal instruments including the United Nations Charter the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. Furthermore, the approach incorporates an extensive review of international jurisprudence notably the rulings of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua Oil Platforms and Palestinian Wall cases. Library-based research tools and documentary analysis are utilized to scrutinize the legal narratives presented by the involved parties and to weigh them against customary international law and treaty obligations.
Findings: The investigation reveals that Israel violated the prohibition of the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The findings indicate that the justification of preemptive self-defense is untenable as Israel failed to provide objective evidence of an imminent or certain armed attack by Iran. The analysis demonstrates that the military operations did not satisfy the cumulative criteria of necessity immediacy and proportionality required under Article 51. Moreover, the targeting of nuclear scientists and civilian infrastructure violated international humanitarian law principles of distinction and precaution. Evidence from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear activities further invalidating the necessity of the strike. The study also identifies a contradiction in the legal defense which shifted between preemptive doctrine and the accumulation of events theory neither of which finds sufficient support in international legal standards for this specific aggression.
Conclusion: The article concludes that the claim of self-defense serves as a pretext for violating the jus cogens norm prohibiting the use of force in international relations. Because the foundational requirement of a prior armed attack was not met the Israeli military intervention is classified as an act of aggression rather than a lawful defensive measure. Consequently, the study affirms that Iran maintains its inherent right to individual or collective self-defense as recognized under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The persistent use of expansive interpretations of self-defense poses a grave threat to international peace and security by undermining the collective security system of the United Nations and establishing a dangerous precedent for unilateral military action.