No legal justification and no clear strategy

A comparison of the US’s attack on Iran with Iraq and Afghanistan

" Shoot first, ask questions later.”   

Few phrases can better capture the logic behind the US and Israel’s strikes on Iran.

Security forces and nuclear programme sites are being targeted, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, has been killed, and only loose discourse about ‘self-defence’ and claims of potential Iranian breaches of UN Security Council resolutions have been thrown about. It’s notable that the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated the US’s ability to outrun legal justification and to act without international support. There’s little reason to believe this time will be any different.

Currently, military conflict in Iran is “pre-emptive” of Iran’s obtainment of nuclear weaponry. Whilst Iran does have an advanced nuclear programme, it has not yet been confirmed as military in nature. Rather, Tehran argues its nuclear activities are for civilian energy development. Naturally, such claims should be treated with caution, given the prospect of nuclear arsenal being so threatening, but it must be noted that the UN has not officially acknowledged the presence of nuclear weapons in Iran. This is an important distinction.

Under the UN Charter, force can only be permitted as self-defence against an armed attack or with Security Council authorisation. These conditions have not been satisfied.

Much of the rhetoric surrounding the conflict today is familiar, resembling the US’s historic ‘axis of evil’ framing of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats to global security. It’s only convenient that this ideology is now resurfacing as a foundation for their claims.

In Iraq, this was similarly the case. There was no formal, solidified evidence of nuclear weapons under Saddam Hussein to enable the UN to authorise the go-ahead for military action. The invasion went ahead regardless.

Afghanistan presents an equally revealing comparison, despite its differing context. International support was significant following the attacks of 11 September 2001. It was viewed as a legitimate act of self-defence against al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime. NATO invoked Article 5, which further solidified the backing of the US. But, even then, there was no specific UN Security Council resolution permitting the initial invasion.

If the military conflict against Iran continues as it is, the lack of support for the US will certainly become clearer. The invasion of Iraq didn’t see the support of Canada, Mexico, Germany or France. It is unlikely that Iran will produce substantial unity behind the US and Israel. Without legal legitimacy or strong allies, the campaign risks being strategically unsustainable.

https://thestudentnews.co.uk/2026/03/17/no-legal-justification-and-no-clear-strategy-a-comparison-of-the-uss-attack-on-iran-with-iraq-and-afghanistan/