International Lawyer: US-Israeli Strikes on Iran Constitute War Crimes

The Trump administration's escalating military campaign against Iran has crossed into war crime territory, according to international legal experts analyzing the recent wave of coordinated US-Israeli strikes.

Saul Takahashi, an international human rights and humanitarian lawyer, issued a stark assessment of the attacks in an interview with Al Jazeera, calling them "clear and obvious war crimes" that could expose both American and Israeli leaders to international criminal prosecution.

The legal analysis comes as the Trump administration continues to ratchet up military pressure on Iran through a combination of airstrikes, naval deployments, and what critics describe as economic warfare through sanctions. The coordinated nature of US-Israeli operations represents a significant escalation in regional tensions that legal scholars say violates fundamental principles of international law.

No Legal Justification for Strikes

Under the UN Charter, military force against another sovereign nation is only permitted in cases of self-defense against an armed attack or when authorized by the UN Security Council. The recent strikes against Iran appear to meet neither criterion, according to international law experts.

"These attacks constitute aggression under international law," Takahashi explained. "There is no credible claim of imminent threat that would justify preemptive military action."

The assessment directly challenges the Trump administration's public justifications for the strikes, which have ranged from vague claims about protecting American interests to accusations of Iranian support for regional militant groups. None of these rationales provide legal cover for unilateral military action under international law.

Pattern of Manufactured Crisis

The strikes fit a broader pattern of Trump administration actions that critics say amount to manufacturing a crisis with Iran to serve domestic political purposes. After unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018 despite international opposition and Iranian compliance, the administration has pursued what it calls "maximum pressure" through punishing economic sanctions.

Those sanctions, which target Iran's oil exports and banking sector, have devastated the Iranian economy and caused widespread civilian suffering. International legal experts increasingly describe the sanctions regime itself as a form of collective punishment that violates humanitarian law.

The military escalation provides Trump with a foreign policy distraction at a moment when his administration faces multiple domestic scandals, from corruption investigations to the ongoing release of documents related to his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. The timing of increased Iran tensions has repeatedly coincided with damaging news cycles for the president.

Criminal Liability for Leaders

Takahashi's assessment that the strikes constitute war crimes raises the possibility of individual criminal liability for those who ordered and carried them out. The International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes of aggression, though the United States is not a party to the court.

However, international law experts note that war crimes can be prosecuted in domestic courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction, and that political and military leaders can face consequences even years after leaving office.

The coordinated nature of US-Israeli operations also raises questions about shared criminal liability between the two governments. Israel's participation in strikes against Iran, a country with which it is not formally at war, compounds the legal problems surrounding the attacks.

Diplomatic Sabotage and Regional Destabilization

The military strikes represent the culmination of years of Trump administration efforts to sabotage diplomatic solutions to tensions with Iran. The 2015 nuclear agreement, negotiated by the Obama administration along with European allies, Russia, and China, had successfully constrained Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Trump's withdrawal from that agreement over the objections of US allies and international inspectors who confirmed Iranian compliance eliminated the primary diplomatic framework for managing the relationship. European nations have struggled to maintain the agreement in the face of US opposition and renewed sanctions.

The result has been a steady march toward military confrontation that serves no clear American security interest but does provide Trump with the appearance of toughness on the international stage.

Congress Sidelined on War Powers

The strikes also raise constitutional questions about the Trump administration's willingness to bypass congressional authority over war-making. While presidents have broad latitude to respond to imminent threats, sustained military campaigns require congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution.

The administration has provided no evidence of an imminent threat that would justify the strikes without congressional approval. Instead, officials have relied on vague assertions about protecting American interests and deterring Iranian actions.

This pattern of executive overreach on military force mirrors the administration's broader assault on democratic checks and balances, from ignoring congressional subpoenas to declaring bogus national emergencies to redirect military funding.

International Isolation

The legal assessment of the strikes as war crimes reflects growing international alarm at US unilateralism under Trump. European allies have repeatedly distanced themselves from the administration's Iran policy, warning that it increases the risk of a catastrophic regional war.

The strikes have also damaged American credibility on international law and human rights. An administration that routinely violates international legal norms while claiming to promote democracy and freedom undermines the entire framework of rules-based international order.

For Trump, that may be the point. Chaos and crisis serve his political interests by dominating news cycles and rallying his base around nationalist themes. The human cost of that strategy, whether measured in Iranian civilian suffering from sanctions or the risk of a wider war, appears to factor little into his calculations.

The legal opinion that these strikes constitute war crimes provides an important marker for accountability. Whether through international courts, domestic prosecutions, or the judgment of history, those who ordered attacks on Iran without legal justification may eventually face consequences for their actions.