Tehran’s Stand: Regional Autonomy and the Struggle Against Israeli Aggression
- Umar Majeed
- Jun 28
- 8 min read
Updated: Jun 30
Introduction:
From Trump’s makeshift ceasefires to Qatar’s military bases accommodating Western forces, Iran’s stand against the rogue actions of Israeli aggression has the potential to define the future of the Middle East. Since its inception point and most recently exacerbated through its genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, Israel has unequivocally and unapologetically begun a trajectory to wage war against the Arab, and by extension, Islamicate, World. Further, its actions have undeniably violated International Law from the Genocide Convention to the Rome Statute: fundamentally transgressing Jus Cogens Norms (International laws that are binding on all, irrespective of ratification, or lack thereof).
This article will seek to delineate the recent events in the Middle East to understand which party has adhered to International Law, if any, whilst simultaneously unravelling the nuance which binds this predicament.
Background:
On Friday, 13th June 2025, the IDF launched a direct military attack against military infrastructure in Iran, which they named Operation Rising Lion. This attack included key facilities such as Natanz, Isfahan and airbases near Tehran; the campaign included at least five strike waves, over 200 aircraft and 330 munitions. As a defence for these actions, Israel claimed that the attack was carried out under the objectives of Pre-Emptive Self-Defence. This was claimed to be due to Iran’s nuclear capacities, which were seemingly imminent.
On the same day, the IRGC retaliated for the attack by announcing Operation True Promise III with over 150 ballistic missiles and 100 drones in multiple waves. Iran claimed that Israel’s campaign was an act of unprovoked aggression, which is illegal under Jus Cogens Norms.
This back and forth continued until the Trump Administration decided to take action under the guise of maintaining universal democracy: America decided to attack Iran, seemingly inconsistent with Trump’s campaign pledge of ‘No New Wars, ’ although predicated by the principle of ‘Strength Through Peace.’
Iran responds by expressing that the US had also partaken in a policy of unprovoked Aggression, and as such, launched an attack on the US Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Was this an act of Aggression by Iran against Qatar?
Most recently, President Trump announced that he had brokered a ceasefire deal. By the next morning, he was on live television expressing his frustration at the fact that both Iran and Israel had struck each other once again, seemingly with no regard to the ceasefire agreement. Official confirmation from Iran that a ceasefire was even finalised is yet to be confirmed.
Pre-Emptive Self-Defence:
The doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence is used when an attack on a State is imminent, so the State takes decisive action by launching an attack. In this scenario, Israel stressed that Iran’s nuclear capacities were on the verge of becoming operational, which they felt would be disastrous for their security, so they decided to attack.
However, the fact that Israel used this as a defence for its actions in Operation Rising Lion is problematic for three reasons. Firstly, the default position is that self-defence requires an armed attack to have already occurred. This is elucidated in Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, which states that:
‘Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…’ (Emphasis Added)
This is after the general rule is cited in Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, which expresses that:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
This means that all Aggression, which is defined under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 as ‘the use of armed force by a State against… another State’, is illegal, with two exceptions.
The first is if the entity which carried out the armed attack is not a State, which means that its actions do not technically meet the crime of Aggression. Instead, such a rogue entity can be described under the concept of Hostis Humani Generis, or ‘Enemies of all Humankind’.
Is Israel a State?
For an entity to gain statehood, it must meet four criteria under the Montevideo Convention (1933), namely: 1. A Permanent Population, 2. A Defined Territory, 3. Government, 4. Capacity to Enter into Legal Relations. Israel fails this test from the second criterion of having a Defined Territory. This is because it acts as a settler colonial occupation, and as such, it is still expanding with no defined borders; in direct contradiction with the right of Palestinian self-determination. As such, it can be argued that under the Declaratory Theory of Recognition (which requires a State to meet all criteria to qualify as a State), Israel is not a State.
There is a legal fallacy drowned in a wave of taboo that has been circling particularly since October 7th. It can be summarised as the following: ‘Israel has the right to self-defence because Israel has the right to exist’. The first proposition hinges upon the factually inaccurate second. No State has ‘the right to exist’ under International Law. It either does exist or does not.
The second exception to Aggression is the bracket of Self Defence, which is then divided into three categories: Self Defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter (after an armed attack), Pre Emptive Self Defence (which is highly controversial, but allowed under certain circumstances) and Preparatory Self Defence, or the Bush Doctrine (which is illegal, as it entails a speculation as to a possible future armed attack, lacking any form of surety), most clearly demonstrated through the ‘War of Terror’ in Iraq.
Operation Rising Lion and Pre-Emptive Self Defence
Israel’s campaign against Iran has already ruled out self-defence under Article 51 and as such, leaves two options. The first is Pre-Emptive self-defence, which is qualified under the Caroline Test (1837) as requiring Proportionality and Necessity. Proportionality requires that the response of the State carrying out the act of self-defence is by the severity of the potential attack that may have occurred. The second is necessity, where the attack is truly imminent and the State has no choice but to carry out an attack. Necessity and, by extension, imminence, are not found in the facts of the Iranian nuclear capacities. If Iran had initiated the attack, it would have had stronger grounds for a defence under Pre-Emptive Self Defence because Israel does have nuclear weapons; thus, the argument changes from one static in potentia, to one of actual imminence.
Preparatory Self Defence:
There can be doubt from the perspective of International Law that Israel carried out an operation of Preparatory Self-Defence. This is where there is a possibility of an attack by the State sometime in the future: it is undoubtedly illegal according to the collective International Community.
This was not the first time that Israel had carried out such an attack; in fact, Israel attacked Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, in an attack that was widely condemned as a violation of International Law. This was followed by the Bush Doctrine in the West’s war in Iraq (2003), which was explicitly condemned by the UN, where the Secretary General Kofi Annan stated ‘from our point of view and the Charter point of view, it (the 2003 Iraq War) was illegal’.
Why did the US get involved?
In an attempt to act as the vanguard of Freedom and Democracy, the US joined the Israeli acts of Aggression against Iran. Whether this policy was irrespective of the worrying influence of the American Zionist Lobby, which seems to play a large role in deciding American foreign policy, on par, even, with Trump’s X Account, is yet to be established.
The guise of America pioneering global justice is exposed through its holistic inertia in preventing the Palestinian Genocide since October 7th 2023. This, instead, may allude to the idea that the true intention behind US involvement in this predicament is due to its strong domestic Zionist lobby.
Did Iran carry out an act of Aggression against Qatar?
There is an interesting question that may arise from this geopolitical inquiry: can the actions of Iran in Qatar during their retaliation against the Aggression of Israel and the US be considered an act of Aggression against Qatar?
The answer is that the policy cannot be considered as illegal Aggression due to the principle of functional control, where the military base in question was under the primary control of America, rather than Qatar. Moreover, Iran did not target Qatar due to any hostilities towards it, as elucidated by the clarification of the Iranian Defence Minister, who said that their target was never Qatar.
As such, whilst the Iranian attack may not be considered as Aggression, it may still be considered as a violation of the territorial sovereignty of Qatar under international principles. Two incidents serve to elucidate this concept. The first is NATO’s 1999 Kosovo air campaign, where missiles strayed into neighbouring states’ airspace, such as Bulgaria. The policy was protested as a violation of sovereignty, but not as an act of Aggression. The second is the US drone strike on Soleimani in Baghdad (2020), which triggered Iraqi protests because its sovereignty was impeached, but not because Iraq was the target.
Therefore, Iran’s attack on the military base in Qatar cannot be considered as Aggression, but it may be considered as a violation of Qatar’s territorial sovereignty under Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, if Qatar deems it as such.
However, if Qatar decides to allow the acts of Iran in US-occupied bases, the campaign would not be considered illegal under International Law. One key incentive as to why they may do so is the growing domestic tensions in Qatar through societal unease towards the West and a growing enmity for Israel due to its genocide in Gaza. If the nation rallied in lobbying the State governance to permit Iranian attacks targeting Western bases, this may result in a shift in the foreign policy of Qatar.
Other foreign involvement:
Another interesting element, which is a matter of mere conjecture, is wider geopolitical involvement in the ‘12 Day War’. Primarily, the roles of China and Russia in the funding of the Iranian military force through backdoor dealings are an interesting thought, which is only to be exposed as the war unravels.
Predictions:
An end to this war, primarily and ostensibly between Iran and Israel, is not likely in the immediate future. Rather, the escalations that have occurred over the past 24 hours indicate the involvement of more key strategic players in the region of Middle East region, and beyond. With the holistic inertia and blatant failure of the Arab World for the Palestinian people, perhaps the actions of Iran may inspire a coalition with Pakistan and Turkey (if for no other reason than the fact that they would be next), which may act as a line of defence for the Islamicate world.
Conclusions:
This article has sought to address the nuanced events which have unfolded in the Middle East over the past fortnight. Primarily, it has addressed Israel’s aggression, the motives for unwavering American backing, the scope of legality for Iran’s policy and the involvement of other key players in the predicament.
Comment below on whether any of the nations involved are justified in their actions and/or acted within the remit of international law, and let us know your predictions for the future of this conflict!
Very insightful article on the geopolitical tensions at present in the middle east.