Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and a national board member of Jewish Voice for Peace, contends that the ongoing military action involving the US and Israel against Iran fundamentally violates established legal frameworks.

Bennis, author of 'Understanding Palestine and Israel' (2025), asserts that these breaches extend beyond specific infractions. The actions by Washington and Tel Aviv against the UN Charter and other international laws are actively eroding the core principles of the rule of law itself.

The Domestic and International Legal Breaches

Constitutional Violations in the US

Domestically, the US Constitution clearly grants Congress the sole authority to declare war. President Donald Trump initiated attacks on Iran without consulting Congress, failing to secure either a formal declaration or authorization for hostilities.

This pattern is not new, as recent Congresses have largely ceded their constitutional war powers to various presidents from both parties. This has allowed military force to be deployed without even the pretense of constitutional assertion.

Congressional Inaction and War Powers

In response to the conflict, both houses of Congress voted along partisan lines to reject War Powers Resolutions. These resolutions could have constrained or prevented Trump’s war. Crucially, votes on these measures did not occur until after the US and Israel had already commenced their war against Iran.

The Crime of Aggression Under International Law

International law is equally explicit regarding the initiation of conflict. The Nuremberg trials established that the “supreme international crime” is the crime of aggression.

The International Military Tribunal ruled in 1946 that starting a war of aggression encompasses the “accumulated evil of the whole.” Consequently, war crimes and crimes against humanity are seen as stemming from this initial illegal act of going to war.

UN Charter Prohibitions Ignored

The US and Israel are currently waging what Bennis defines as a war of aggression, directly contravening the UN Charter. The Charter mandates that member states resolve disputes peacefully so that international peace and security are not jeopardized.

Furthermore, it prohibits UN members from using “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

Exceptions to the Use of Force

There are only two recognized exceptions to this prohibition on military force. The first is authorization by the UN Security Council, and the second is immediate self-defense following an “armed attack.”

Neither condition was met in this instance. The Security Council never authorized action, nor had Iran attacked the US or Israel. Claims of using “preventive” force against a potential, unspecified future attack do not legitimize the action.

Erosion of Accountability and Precedent

Contrasting Past and Present Approaches

While dangerous trends toward lawlessness persist, past administrations made attempts to adhere to legal norms. In 2002, George W. Bush sought and ultimately failed to secure Security Council authorization for the war against Iraq, despite using significant pressure.

The Bush-Blair administration proceeded without UN approval following the Council majority's defiance, justifying it under a dubious claim of self-defense against an attack that had not occurred. International law did not halt the war, but it empowered a global anti-war movement.

Trump's Dismissal of Legal Restraints

In stark contrast, President Trump openly dismissed the need for congressional approval or UN authorization for the war on Iran. Trump stated that the only limits on his global power were “my own morality. My own mind….I don’t need international law.”

His Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, added that the Pentagon would operate without “stupid rules of engagement.” Very few entities—including the UN, Congress, or the mainstream press—are publicly citing the UN Charter’s restrictions against launching new wars.

The Imperative for Civil Society Action

The current US war against Iran is intensifying the delegitimization of the rule of law, posing a serious threat to averting future conflicts. The weakness and lack of political will in both Congress and the United Nations have failed to stop this destructive war.

Because global institutions lack sufficient enforcement capacity, civil society organizations and social movements must demand that governments adhere to the law. These popular movements are essential for holding powerful actors accountable in the absence of robust global enforcement.

The conflict in Iran has resulted in thousands of deaths and millions displaced, creating a spreading humanitarian and economic crisis some term the “Gazafication” of Tehran. This ongoing war is undermining international legal foundations, threatening severe consequences if accountability is not established.