Attack on Iran | Doubts about the legality of Israel's bombings

Berlin. A report by the Bundestag's research services expresses serious doubts about the legality of the Israeli and US attacks on Iran under international law. The "vast majority of international lawyers" do not consider the criteria for Israel's "state of self-defense" under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to have been met, according to the 54-page report commissioned by Left Party MP Ulrich Thoden.

Judgment of international law scholars “almost unanimous”

According to the scientists, Israel would have had to prove that Iran was on the verge of building a nuclear weapon. "The production of sufficient fissile material as part of the Iranian nuclear program is only a necessary intermediate step," the report states. Furthermore, it would have had to be demonstrated that Iran had the firm intention of using such a weapon against Israel and that the military operation "Rising Lion" was truly the last opportunity to prevent the construction of the atomic bomb. According to the almost unanimous judgment of international legal scholars, none of this was sufficiently done.

The experts acknowledge that intelligence agencies may have information that is not yet public, which could change the facts. "Nevertheless, Israel now has a duty to legally justify its military action against Iran."

According to the researchers, US intervention in the war would only be covered by international law if the Israeli attacks were in compliance with international law, which they say is "significantly in doubt." Therefore, the US military operation cannot be based on the right to collective self-defense, "contrary to the American justification narrative," the report states.

The military operation "Rising Lion," launched on June 13, targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and military installations, as well as high-ranking military officers and nuclear physicists. On June 22, the United States intervened in the war with airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. A ceasefire came into effect three days later.

Warning against undermining the prohibition of violence

The research services prepare expert opinions on behalf of individual members of parliament or Bundestag committees to support the work of parliament. In the current report, the authors warn against abusing the right of self-defense to enforce security policy interests. "There are good reasons not to unduly strain and overstretch existing norms of international law (such as the right of self-defense) that justify a violation of the prohibition of the use of force, thereby undermining the prohibition of the use of force," the report states.

The German government has not yet commented on whether it considers the Israeli and US attacks on Iran to be illegal under international law. However, Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU) has clearly backed the military operations . Shortly after the US entered the war, he said: "For us, and for me personally, there is no reason to criticize what Israel started a week ago, and no reason to criticize what America did last weekend. It is not without risk. But leaving things as they were was not an option either."

Left Party politician Thoden sees the report as supporting the thesis that the attacks violated international law. It is therefore "also a slap in the face for the German government," he says. The German government's stance on the attacks therefore constitutes a violation of the law and contributes to the erosion of international law. dpa/nd