The war led by the United States and Israel in Iran has once again sparked controversy between those who uphold the rules of law and those who seek to disregard them.
Supporters of respecting the rules of law argue that this war is an act of aggression, as per the United Nations Charter, which only recognizes the lawful use of force justified by legitimate self-defense or authorized by the Security Council. The concept of preventive war cannot justify an armed intervention.
On the other hand, realists believe that while this war may be illegal, it is still legitimate given the oppressive regime in Tehran, which is tyrannical towards its people, terrorist, and dangerous to its neighbors.
It is undeniable that the Iranian regime lacks empathy morally, and its collapse would be viewed positively. However, the temptation to dissolve law in morality or at least withdraw it could threaten the collective effort to prevent the use of force.
The reasons for Trump’s decision to go to war and the objectives to achieve remain uncertain. His instinct as a predator and businessman seems to guide him, similar to his approach with Venezuela. Should we prefer the caprice of an autocrat over the rule of law, hiding behind a pseudo-moral rhetoric? Should we allow Putin to aggress Ukraine?
While international law is not perfect and is not meant to replace politics, choosing the violent and unilateral decision of an adventurer over it could lead to chaos. Those who criticize the inadequacy of law are the very ones undermining its foundations.
– Context note: The article discusses the ethical and legal implications of the war between the US, Israel, and Iran. – Fact Check note: The content focuses on different perspectives regarding the legality and morality of the conflict, without taking a definitive stance.
/2026/04/14/69de4e4f7783a191072188.jpg "Italy suspends renewal of defense agreement with Israel.")
