Legal Justifications and International Reactions to US-Israeli Strikes on Iran

The recent military strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran have sparked significant debate regarding their legality and implications. Israeli Ambassador to Australia, Hillel Newman, has publicly defended these actions, asserting that questioning their legal basis is "mind-boggling." He emphasized that the strikes aim to eliminate Iran's capacity to produce nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, framing them as acts of self-defense against imminent threats.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Hillel Newman urged the Albanese government not to call for a ceasefire before the war's objectives are achieved, suggesting that the conflict could conclude sooner than the anticipated four to five weeks if Iran's nuclear capabilities are effectively neutralized. He argued that the strikes were necessary due to intelligence indicating Iran's rapid advancement toward nuclear military capability. Newman stated, “If one supports the objectives of the war, then one should also support the legitimacy of the operation until we attain the objectives.”

The Sydney Morning Herald

In contrast, a group of UN human rights experts, including University of Sydney professor Ben Saul, condemned the strikes as "unlawful" and "unprovoked," asserting that international law should apply uniformly. They criticized the strikes and called for a reevaluation of the legal justifications presented by Israel and the US.

The Sydney Morning Herald

The legality of the strikes has been challenged by various international law experts, who argue that the initial attacks were not justified under international law due to the absence of an imminent threat from Iran. Rafael Mariano Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, noted that there is currently "no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb," although he expressed concern over the lack of access to Iran's enriched uranium stockpile.

The Sydney Morning Herald

Following the strikes, Iran has reportedly retaliated by attacking countries it previously maintained friendly relations with, surprising many observers. In Lebanon, Hezbollah launched three rockets into Israel, which were intercepted by Israeli air defenses. The ongoing conflict has resulted in significant casualties, with Lebanese authorities reporting 77 deaths since hostilities resumed.

The Sydney Morning Herald

As the situation develops, the Albanese government has called for de-escalation of hostilities while refraining from demanding a ceasefire. The international community continues to monitor the situation closely, with discussions around the legality of military actions and the potential for further conflict in the region.

The Sydney Morning Herald

• “Imagine if Australia was under attack, and there were rockets launched by some entity against Australia. Who would question the right of defence against such a rogue entity?” — Hillel Newman, Israeli Ambassador to Australia

The Sydney Morning Herald

• “We cannot pick and choose when international law applies.” — Ben Saul, University of Sydney Professor

The Sydney Morning Herald

• “If one supports the objectives of the war, then one should also support the legitimacy of the operation until we attain the objectives.” — Hillel Newman, Israeli Ambassador to Australia

The Sydney Morning Herald