Laws of War

Key Takeaways

• Reed Rubinstein asserts US strikes meet international self‑defence criteria.
• Claims conflict with Iran has persisted since June 2025.
• US cites collective defence of Israel under jus ad bellum.
• Ambassador Mike Waltz addressed jus in bello limits on targeting infrastructure.
• Legal scholars question proportionality and war‑crime implications.

Pulse Analysis

Operation Epic Fury marks the latest escalation in a fraught U.S.-Iran relationship that has simmered since the 2025 missile exchanges and proxy confrontations. By invoking the right of self‑defence, the State Department positions the strikes as a continuation of a conflict that predates the February 2026 attacks, aligning the narrative with the United Nations Charter’s Article 51. This legal framing not only seeks to legitise immediate tactical decisions but also aims to shield broader strategic objectives, such as safeguarding Israel and securing vital maritime routes like the Strait of Hormuz.

Rubinstein’s memo emphasizes jus ad bellum principles—necessity, proportionality, and the absence of a need for continual reassessment—while distinguishing them from jus in bello considerations raised by Ambassador Mike Waltz. The latter’s focus on the legality of targeting Iranian bridges and power plants spotlights the fine line between lawful military objectives and potential war‑crime allegations. By asserting that the conflict’s scale and persistence satisfy customary international law, the U.S. attempts to pre‑empt criticism that specific strikes may breach humanitarian norms.

The discourse has immediate diplomatic ramifications. Allies monitoring the legality of the campaign may recalibrate support, and legal scholars are poised to test the U.S. arguments in international forums. If the justification holds, it could establish a precedent for future collective‑defence operations, expanding the interpretive leeway for pre‑emptive strikes. Conversely, sustained challenges could constrain Washington’s operational latitude, prompting a reassessment of how legal narratives are crafted around emerging conflicts.