The recent wave of American military strikes on Iran—conducted alongside Israel—has ignited a fierce legal debate across capitals and courtrooms alike. With more than a thousand targets reportedly hit and several senior Iranian figures killed, the question now being asked by analysts and constitutional scholars is simple yet profound: were these attacks lawful?
Among those killed was Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a development that has dramatically escalated tensions in the region.
Trump’s Justification: Preventing an Imminent Threat
U.S. President Donald Trump has offered multiple reasons for the military campaign. According to him, the strikes were designed to neutralize imminent threats posed by Iran against the United States, its overseas bases and allied nations.
However, the administration has not publicly released detailed intelligence supporting these claims. Trump has also asserted that Iran could develop a nuclear weapon within a month, though no concrete evidence has been presented, and the statement appears inconsistent with earlier claims that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure had already been severely crippled.
The Constitutional Question in Washington
Under the U.S. Constitution, the president serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and directs foreign policy. But the authority to formally declare war lies with Congress.
Historically, American presidents have launched limited military operations without congressional approval when national interests were cited. Yet constitutional experts argue the current offensive—both in scale and duration—may be pushing the boundaries of that precedent.
The administration itself has described the campaign in stark terms. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth characterized the operation as one of the most lethal and complex aerial campaigns ever undertaken. Trump has indicated that the conflict could continue for weeks and warned of potential U.S. casualties.
For comparison, major wars such as the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 were authorized by Congress during the presidency of George W. Bush.
The War Powers Resolution Test
The strikes are also being examined under the War Powers Resolution, a law designed to limit unilateral military action by the president.
The resolution allows the president to deploy armed forces without prior approval only under specific circumstances—such as when responding to an attack on the United States or its military. It also requires regular briefings to Congress and imposes a 60-day deadline for unauthorized military engagements unless lawmakers approve an extension.
Members of Congress from both parties have indicated they may push for a vote to compel a withdrawal. Even if such legislation passes, overriding a presidential veto would require a two-thirds majority—an outcome widely considered unlikely. Political pressure and public opinion may ultimately prove to be the more decisive checks.
International Law: A Separate Battlefield
Beyond Washington’s constitutional debate lies the broader framework of global law. The United Nations Charter prohibits countries from using force against another state except in two situations: when authorized by the United Nations Security Council or when acting in self-defense following an armed attack.
Neither scenario clearly applies to the strikes against Iran, according to many international law experts.
There is, however, a controversial doctrine known as pre-emptive self-defense. Under this theory, a country may strike first if it can prove an overwhelming and imminent threat. Critics argue that the United States has not publicly demonstrated such evidence.
Although the U.S. holds veto power at the Security Council—effectively blocking punitive action there—diplomatic costs may still emerge. Some allies, including the United Kingdom and Spain, have reportedly restricted the use of their bases for the operation, citing legal uncertainties.
The Submarine Strike Near Sri Lanka
One specific incident that drew attention was the sinking of an Iranian naval vessel by a U.S. submarine in waters near Sri Lanka.
Legal analysts say the strike appears to comply with the traditional laws of armed conflict since it occurred in international waters and targeted an operational military ship. Still, critics argue that if the overall campaign is justified as preventing an imminent threat, a warship far from Iranian territory may not clearly meet that threshold unless tied directly to such a threat.
The Killing of Khamenei
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the conflict is the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Reports suggest that Israeli forces carried out the actual strike while the United States supplied intelligence and operational assistance.
The issue touches on Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan, which prohibits U.S. officials or intelligence agencies from participating in assassinations.
Yet the rule becomes murkier during armed conflict. If a leader is deemed a legitimate military commander and the countries are considered to be at war, the killing could potentially fall within the laws of war rather than being treated as an assassination.
In the case of Khamenei, the legality may ultimately hinge on a fundamental question still being debated worldwide: whether the United States was already engaged in a lawful war with Iran at the moment the strike occurred.
