Escalation of U.S.-Iran Conflict: An Analysis of Current Military Actions and Legal Implications

The ongoing military actions by the United States against Iran have intensified, raising significant legal and geopolitical concerns. As the Trump administration escalates its confrontation with Iran, experts warn of the potential for a conflict similar to those experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan. Scott Lucas, a professor of American Studies and International Politics at the Clinton Institute, University College Dublin, emphasizes that the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran lack legal justification under international law.

France 24

Scott Lucas argues that the attacks on Iran are illegal, citing the UN Charter, which permits military action only in cases of imminent threat. He states, “You can say many things to try to justify the US/Israeli attacks, but you cannot say they were defensive. They are offensive attacks.” Lucas highlights that Iran does not possess the capability to directly threaten the U.S., a claim supported by a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency report indicating that Iran would need another decade to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Byline Supplement

The U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 has exacerbated tensions. The agreement, established in 2015 between Iran and six world powers, aimed to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the U.S. exit, Iran engaged in negotiations to limit its nuclear capabilities, but these efforts have been undermined by military actions from Israel, which has sought regime change rather than a diplomatic resolution.

Byline Supplement

Critics, including Lucas, argue that the U.S. strategy appears to be influenced by Israeli interests, particularly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership. Lucas notes that recent military actions have disrupted diplomatic talks, questioning whether Trump has been manipulated by Israeli hawks. He suggests that the U.S. might settle for a "regime accommodation" rather than outright regime change, drawing parallels to the situation in Venezuela.

Byline Supplement

The potential outcomes of the current conflict could lead to a transitional Iranian government rather than a complete overthrow. Lucas speculates that more accommodating figures within the current administration might remain in power if they align with U.S. interests. He warns that without ground support, the U.S. risks repeating the chaotic outcomes seen in previous conflicts, as the complexities of regime change in Iran could lead to significant instability.

France 24

• “You can say many things to try to justify the US/Israeli attacks, but you cannot say they were defensive. They are offensive attacks. And when you say that, as the lawyers to the UK Government made clear, this does not stand up under international law.” — Scott Lucas, Professor of American Studies and International Politics

Byline Supplement

• “Iran, certainly in February 2026, was not on the verge of striking Israel,” — Scott Lucas

Byline Supplement

• “The only grounds you would have for it, was if there was an imminent attack expected from Iran on Israel, in which case the Israelis and the United States could say that what in effect they were doing was a pre-emptive strike.” — Scott Lucas

Byline Supplement

While Lucas asserts that Iran lacks the capability to threaten the U.S., the U.S. government maintains a different narrative regarding Iran's military capabilities and intentions. There is also a lack of clarity regarding the specific legal justifications being used by the Trump administration for its military actions.

Byline Supplement

In summary, the current U.S. military actions against Iran raise critical legal and geopolitical questions, with experts warning of the potential for a protracted conflict without clear objectives or justifications.

Byline Supplement