Legal experts say many countries will consider the attacks unjustified under United Nations Charter
The United States military has joined Israel and attacked more than 1,000 targets in Iran and killed many of its top officials, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Below is a look at the legality of the US attacks, which critics say exceed the president’s authority and fails to comply with international law.
What has Trump said?
President Donald Trump has provided varying objectives and justifications. He has said he felt Iran was going to strike first and the attack was meant to eliminate imminent threats to the USs, its military bases overseas and allies, although he did not provide details and some claims were not backed by US intelligence reports.
Trump also said Iran could obtain a nuclear weapon within one month but he did not provide evidence and this contradicted his claims in June that the US military had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear programme.
Presidential power to use the military
The attacks on Iran are pushing the boundaries of Trump’s constitutional authority, according to legal experts. Under the US constitution, the president commands the armed forces and directs foreign relations but only Congress has the power to declare war.
Presidents of both parties have conducted military strikes without congressional approval when it was in the national interest but less intense in duration and scope than what would be considered a war — a limit that Trump may be testing.
Trump and War Secretary Pete Hegseth have both described the action as a war and Hegseth called it “the most lethal, most complex and most-precision aerial operation in history”.
Trump said it could last five weeks or more and cautioned that there will be more US casualties.
Congress has provided authorisation for large military operations, such as former president George W. Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.
War powers resolution
The War Powers Resolution (WPR) of 1973 acts as a check on presidential power.
Under the WPR, the president can only involve the military in an armed conflict when Congress has declared war or provided specific authority or in response to an attack on US territory or its military.
It requires the president to report regularly to Congress, which the administration started to do on Monday.
The WPR also requires unauthorised military actions to be terminated within 60 days unless the deadline is extended.
It provides a procedure for Congress to withdraw the military from a conflict and members of both parties have said they plan to put such legislation to a vote this week.
It’s highly unlikely such a vote would garner a two-thirds majority needed to override a Trump veto but some lawmakers said it would put members on the record in an election year.
Legal experts said popular opposition might be the main check on Trump’s ability to continue the attacks.
What does internatinal law say?
Legal experts said many countries will consider the attacks unjustified under the United Nations Charter, which states that member states must refrain from using force or the threat of force against other states.
There are exceptions when force is authorised by the UN Security Council or used in self-defence in response to armed attack, neither of which applies.
There is also the concept of pre-emptive self-defence, which would arguably allow the US to attack Iran if it had proof of an imminent, overwhelming attack.
The US has a veto at the UN Security Council, shielding Washington.
Legal experts said violating international law still carries a cost and both the United Kingdom and Spain have limited the use of their bases in the attacks, citing the lack of justification for the conflict.
Was the killing of Khamenei legal?
Legal experts said it is not clear cut.
Israel is reported to have carried out the actual strike that killed Khamenei, while the US offered intelligence and operational support.
Republican president Ronald Reagan in 1981 signed Executive Order 12333 which prohibited anyone working for the US government or acting on its behalf from engaging in assassination. It also barred participation in assassination by the US intelligence community.
However, the killing of a leader which might qualify as assassination in peacetime could be a legitimate act of war during an armed conflict, legal experts said.
In Khamenei’s case, legality would partly depend on whether the US was at war when he was killed and whether he was considered a military leader.
