The Israeli Airstrikes against Iran: A Crime of Aggression under International Law

Heybatollah Najandimanesh, Associate Professor of International law, Allameh Tabatabei University, Tehran, Iran

The Israel Airstrikes against Iran: A Crime of Aggression under International Law

Abstract

This paper examine the recent large-scale Israeli airstrikes campaign against Iran, analyzing its characterization as a crime of aggression under international law. By targeting over one hundred locations, including civilian infrastructure and nuclear facilities, the strikes raise serious concerns regarding violations of the UN Charter, the Rome Statute, and customary international law. The study explores the legal framework defining aggression, assesses the factual background of the attacks, and critically evaluates the legitimacy of Israeli claimed self-defense. It further considers the implications for international humanitarian law, including principles of proportionality and distinction, and discusses the importance and necessity of documentation of crimes committed. The findings call for strengthened accountability measures and renewed global commitment to upholding the rule of law to prevent future violations of sovereignty and human rights.

Keywords

Crime of aggression, Israeli Airstrikes, Iran, international law, UN Charter, war crimes, accountability, self-defense

1. Introduction

On the night leading into Friday, the Israeli military launched a massive and coordinated airstrike campaign involving over 200 fighter jets targeting more than 100 locations across the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran. These strikes struck a wide range of sites, including vital civilian infrastructure, residential areas, public buildings, and Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to official Iranian state news sources, the attack resulted in the deaths of at least 60 individuals, among them 20 children, underscoring the severe humanitarian impact of the bombardment. Israel characterized these strikes as “pre-emptive,” asserting a need to neutralize perceived imminent threats posed by Iran. However, the scale and nature of these attacks raise critical questions under international law.

This paper contends that the Israeli airstrikes campaign constitute a clear act of aggression as defined by international legal frameworks, including the United Nations Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The attacks, carried out without United Nations Security Council authorization and absent an imminent or provoked armed attack by Iran, violate the fundamental prohibition on the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Moreover, the deliberate targeting of civilian sites and the disproportionate harm inflicted upon non-combatants violate core principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), potentially amounting to war crimes.

The importance of examining this event lies not only in addressing the immediate violations and human suffering but also in its broader implications for international peace and security. Understanding the legal dimensions of the strikes is essential to ensuring accountability, deterring future unlawful uses of force, and upholding the rule of law within the international community. This study thus contributes to the urgent discourse on state responsibility, individual criminal liability, and the enforcement of international legal norms in times of escalating geopolitical tensions.

2. Legal Framework on Crime of Aggression

The crime of aggression is recognized as one of the most serious offenses under international law, involving the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another State without lawful justification. The primary legal framework governing the crime of aggression is set out in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), supplemented by the United Nations Charter and principles of customary international law.

1. Definition and Scope under the Rome Statute

Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute defines the crime of aggression as the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution, by a person in a position of control or direction over a State’s political or military action, of an act of aggression which constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter. The term “act of aggression” refers specifically to the use of armed force by a State against another State in a manner inconsistent with the Charter’s provisions, including but not limited to invasion, military occupation, bombardment, blockade, and attacks on a State’s armed forces or territory.

This definition restricts the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression to acts committed by senior leaders who bear effective control over the actions of their State, reflecting the principle of individual criminal responsibility for high-level decision-makers. It is distinct from other international crimes such as war crimes or crimes against humanity, which may be committed by individuals at various levels.

1. UN Charter Provisions

The United Nations Charter is the cornerstone of the international legal order regarding the use of force. Article 2(4) expressly prohibits all UN Member States from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This prohibition is fundamental and unconditional, underscoring the principle of sovereign equality and peaceful coexistence.

The Charter, however, outlines two primary exceptions to this prohibition: the right to individual or collective self-defense under Article 51, and enforcement actions authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. Any use of force outside these exceptions is considered unlawful and constitutes aggression. The legality of pre-emptive or preventive strikes remains highly contentious, with international jurisprudence generally requiring an imminent threat to justify self-defense.

C: Customary International Law Principles

Beyond treaty law, customary international law solidifies the prohibition against aggression, deriving from consistent State practice and opinio juris (belief that the practice is legally obligatory). The Nuremberg Principles and post-World War II international instruments contributed to crystallizing the norm that aggressive war is illegal and that individuals who plan or execute such acts are criminally liable.

1. Conditions for Lawful vs. Unlawful Use of Force

Lawful uses of force must satisfy stringent criteria, including necessity, proportionality, and immediacy, especially in the context of self-defense. The use of force must respond to an armed attack or an imminent threat thereof, be proportionate to the threat posed, and be the last resort after all peaceful means have been exhausted.

In contrast, any premeditated, large-scale military attack without Security Council authorization or clear self-defense justification violates these conditions and qualifies as an act of aggression.

1. Relevant Precedents

Historical and recent precedents provide critical insights into the application of the crime of aggression. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was unanimously condemned as an act of aggression, leading to a Security Council-authorized coalition response. More recently, the Russian Federation’s military actions in Ukraine since 2014, and especially the full-scale invasion in 2022, have been widely analyzed and condemned under international law as crimes of aggression, with ongoing ICC investigations and international sanctions.

These precedents underscore the international community’s evolving standards in defining and responding to acts of aggression, reinforcing the legal basis for classifying the Israeli airstrikes against Iran as unlawful aggression under the established framework.

3. Factual Background

In a highly coordinated military operation conducted overnight into Friday and continuing into the following day, the Israeli Air Force deployed over 200 fighter jets to carry out a large-scale aerial bombardment targeting more than 100 locations across the Islamic Republic of Iran. This unprecedented campaign involved simultaneous strikes across multiple provinces, including major urban centers, nuclear research and development facilities, and critical civilian infrastructure.

The targets of these airstrikes encompassed a wide array of sites. Among them were residential neighborhoods, schools, hospitals, power plants, water treatment facilities, and public transportation hubs—sites ordinarily protected under international humanitarian law due to their civilian nature. In addition, Israel targeted nuclear-related installations, which Iran asserts are part of its peaceful energy program. The Israeli regime framed the operation as “pre-emptive strikes” designed to thwart what it described as imminent threats posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions and hostile regional activities.

Official statements from Israeli authorities emphasized the necessity of these strikes to protect national security and regional stability. However, the legitimacy of this “pre-emptive” justification remains legally contested. Under international law, particularly the UN Charter, the right to self-defense is limited to cases of actual or imminent armed attack. The burden of proving imminence and necessity rests on the acting State, and unilateral military action without Security Council authorization or clear evidence of an imminent threat risks being classified as unlawful aggression.

The human toll of the strikes has been devastating. Iranian state media reported at least 60 fatalities, including 20 children, alongside numerous injuries affecting women, elderly persons, and other civilians. Hospitals reported overwhelming numbers of patients suffering from burns, blast trauma, and respiratory complications. In addition to the tragic loss of life, extensive damage was inflicted on essential infrastructure, crippling power grids and water supply systems, which further exacerbates the humanitarian crisis. Independent media outlets and human rights organizations have corroborated these reports, releasing video footage and photographic evidence of collapsed buildings, scorched neighborhoods, and overwhelmed medical facilities.

Satellite imagery analyzed by international observers confirms widespread destruction consistent with large-scale aerial bombardments. Comparative before-and-after images reveal the extent of the damage to both civilian and strategic military facilities. Open-source investigations, including geolocation of footage and eyewitness accounts collected through secure communication channels, provide further substantiation of the patterns and scale of the attacks.

Collectively, these elements construct a comprehensive factual record indicating that the Israeli strikes went beyond narrowly defined military objectives and disproportionately affected civilian populations and protected sites. The evidence raises profound questions regarding compliance with international humanitarian law and the lawful use of force, forming the factual foundation for assessing individual and State responsibility under international criminal law.

4. Analysis of the Attacks as an Aggression

The Israeli aerial bombardment campaign against multiple locations in Iran constitutes a significant use of armed force, triggering a detailed legal analysis to determine whether it amounts to an act of aggression under international law.

According to Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute and the customary international law embodied in the UN Charter, an act of aggression is defined as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.” The scale and intensity of the Israeli strikes, involving over 200 fighter jets attacking more than 100 sites, including civilian and nuclear facilities, unequivocally constitute the use of armed force. Moreover, these attacks occurred without the consent of the Iranian government and thus directly infringe on Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

To assess whether this use of force qualifies as aggression, one must consider potential justifications under international law. The UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense (Article 51) or when authorized by the UN Security Council (UNSC) under Chapter VII. Israel’s claim that these were “pre-emptive strikes” raises the issue of whether the action meets the stringent requirements of anticipatory self-defense.

The doctrine of anticipatory self-defense remains highly contested and is limited to situations where an armed attack is imminent and unavoidable. Scholarly and state practice generally demand that the threat be instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means or moment for deliberation. In the absence of clear, publicly verifiable evidence that Iran posed such an immediate threat, Israel’s justification appears legally insufficient. Furthermore, no UNSC resolution authorized these strikes, further undermining their legality under the UN Charter framework.

Beyond the crime of aggression, these strikes must be examined under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles, particularly the principles of proportionality and distinction. Proportionality requires that the incidental harm to civilians or civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. (“The Principle of Proportionality in the DoD Law of War Manual”) The widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, schools, and residential areas—raises serious concerns about disproportionate use of force. Distinction obligates parties to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians and between military objectives and civilian objects.

The documented targeting of civilian sites, resulting in the deaths of at least 20 children and dozens of other civilians, represents a blatant violation of these fundamental principles. Intentional or reckless attacks against civilians or civilian objects constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute (Articles 7 and 8). Additionally, the use of certain weapons and tactics, if proven to be indiscriminate or disproportionate, can constitute aggravating factors enhancing the gravity of these violations.

In conclusion, the Israeli strikes not only fulfill the criteria of an act of aggression by violating Iran’s sovereignty through unauthorized use of force but also amount to serious breaches of IHL. These violations encompass deliberate or reckless attacks on civilians and protected objects, warranting individual criminal responsibility for war crimes in addition to State responsibility for aggression. The absence of lawful justification and the scale of civilian harm solidify the case for categorizing these airstrikes as illegal acts of aggression under international law.

5. Legal Implications and Accountability

The Israeli airstrikes against Iranian territory, characterized by their scale, target selection, and disregard for civilian life, carry profound legal implications under international criminal law, specifically concerning individual criminal responsibility and mechanisms of accountability.

Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), individuals—including political leaders, military commanders, and other persons effectively exercising control over military operations—can be held criminally responsible for acts of aggression (Article 8 bis) as well as for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during armed conflicts (Articles 6–8). The large-scale and deliberate nature of the Israeli strikes, especially targeting civilian infrastructure and resulting in substantial loss of innocent lives, may qualify as war crimes under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

A, Individual Criminal Responsibility

The doctrine of individual criminal responsibility holds that culpability extends beyond State actions to those who plan, order, or directly carry out unlawful military operations. Israeli leaders, including the Prime Minister, Defense Minister, and high-ranking military officials, could be implicated as the evidence establishes that they authorized or failed to prevent these attacks despite knowledge of their unlawful nature. Command responsibility may also apply because commanders knew or should have known about the crimes and did not take reasonable measures to stop or punish them.

1. Importance of Documentation, Evidence, and International Pressure

Although there are challenges for prosecuting, meticulous documentation of the violations is indispensable. Detailed, verifiable evidence—including witness testimonies, satellite imagery, intercepted communications, and forensic reports—forms the backbone of any future legal proceedings. Transparent and systematic data collection enhances the credibility of allegations and facilitates advocacy at international forums.

International pressure, including diplomatic efforts, public awareness campaigns, and sanctions, complements legal accountability by creating an environment where impunity becomes politically costly. Sustained advocacy for impartial investigations and respect for international law is crucial to deterring further violations and upholding the principles enshrined in the UN Charter and the Rome Statute.

6. Conclusion

The comprehensive analysis presented in this study clearly demonstrates that the extensive Israeli airstrike campaign against multiple locations across Iran constitutes a crime of aggression under international law. By launching a large-scale military assault without United Nations Security Council authorization and absent a legitimate claim of self-defense, Israeli regime has violated the core principles enshrined in the UN Charter and the Rome Statute. The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and residential areas, alongside critical nuclear facilities, further compounds these violations, amounting not only to aggression but also potential war crimes under International Humanitarian Law.

This paper underscores the urgent need for robust mechanisms of accountability. Individual criminal responsibility of Israeli leaders and military commanders must be thoroughly investigated and pursued through international judicial bodies such as the International Criminal Court. Without such accountability, the rule of law risks being undermined, and impunity for grave breaches of international norms may become entrenched.

Moreover, the international community must reaffirm its commitment to upholding the prohibition on the unlawful use of force and protecting the sovereignty and security of all states. This requires not only condemnation but also concrete diplomatic and legal actions to deter future violations and maintain international peace and security.

Finally, this study calls for further research into the evolving nature of modern conflicts and the adequacy of current legal frameworks to address new forms of aggression and hybrid warfare. Strengthening international legal institutions and fostering cooperation among states are essential steps toward preventing such egregious violations in the future.

In sum, the Israeli airstrikes on Iran represent a stark challenge to the international legal order, demanding an immediate and principled response to uphold justice, peace, and the rule of law in the international arena.

Photo: People gather near damaged vehicles in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025.