According to the legal assessment, carried out by IRNA based on all applicable rules and standards of international law, Israel’s military action against Iran cannot in any way be classified as “legitimate self-defense.”

It is instead a grave and manifest violation of the foundational principle prohibiting the use of force, as well as a substantive and egregious breach of international humanitarian law, the laws of war, and international human rights law.

The assessment shows that Israel’s justification — that Iran’s nuclear and missile programs posed a threat — is totally baseless and legally illegitimate, and even if Iran had built nuclear weapons and possessed one of the most advanced and wide-ranging missile arsenals in the world, any Israeli attack on its nuclear or missile infrastructure would still constitute a gross violation of international law and qualify as a criminal act of aggression and war crime.

As a result, Israel bears international responsibility and is obligated to provide compensation for damages and to offer guarantees of non-repetition. In addition, the war entails individual criminal liability for the planners, perpetrators, and accomplices of these crimes.

The assessment also concludes that the United States’ attack on Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities is certainly not legitimate self-defense, but rather, it is an undeniable and substantive breach of international law, including the prohibition of threat or use of force and key principles of the laws of armed conflict and humanitarian law.

The US attack, too, is an act of aggression, an international crime, and a clear example of war crimes; therefore, Washington must be held internationally responsible and must compensate for damages and guarantee that the action is not repeated. Individual criminal liability is likewise established for those involved in the US strikes.

Moreover, these attacks by Israel and the US, particularly on Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations, fall under the responsibilities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations. However, the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council not only failed to condemn the attacks or adopt a resolution but even refrained from issuing a basic formal statement. This reflects a grave abdication of institutional responsibility.

The focus of Israeli attacks on assassinating scientists and striking nuclear facilities, and the US targeting completely peaceful nuclear installations, will have serious and long-term consequences for global non-proliferation norms and the inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy.

Given Iran’s full membership in the NPT and the IAEA, comprehensive safeguards agreement, and unprecedented transparency, with no indication of diversion reported by the IAEA, these attacks are a serious assault on non-proliferation norms and undermine the very legitimacy of the NPT, the IAEA, and the utility of international cooperation mechanisms.

The legal analysis also questions the practicality of the NPT membership if peaceful nuclear activity makes a country a military target. The US position favoring “zero enrichment” in Iran and limiting nuclear cooperation to narrow, dependent arrangements is a violation of nations’ sovereign rights under Article IV of the NPT

The attacks also reveal that peaceful nuclear use is being redefined under coercion to mean dependence on Western fuel supplies, raising critical questions about the true benefits of treaty membership.

The legal assessment also shows that the US-Israeli acts of aggression reflect a growing supremacy of power over law in international relations, and should the dominance of force over law persist, global chaos and insecurity will only increase.