Goodness me there’s been enough intel on this subject
‘ UNA-UK statement on the illegal and escalatory attacks on Iran
Published on 03 March 2026
The US and Israeli attacks on Iran, and the assassination of the country’s Supreme Leader, represent an illegal and unilateral war of choice.
This act of aggression is a violation of the UN Charter and, along with Iran’s retaliation across the region, is fuelling a wider, growing conflict in which civilians again will pay the highest price.
The UN Secretary General has condemned the use of force by the US and Israel, as well as the retaliation by Iran across the region. Speaking to the UN Security Council, he said: “Military action carries the risk of igniting a chain of events that no one can control in the most volatile region of the world…Lasting peace can only be achieved through peaceful means, including genuine dialogue and negotiations.”
International law prohibits wars of aggression for good reason. The power and importance of these laws come from previous, bitter experience. The UN Charter was created by leaders who had lived through the Second World War and wanted to prevent future conflicts escalating into all-out, uncontrollable violence. They therefore agreed strict limits on the use of force, permitting it only in circumstances of necessary self-defence against an imminent threat.
The US and Israeli attacks on Iran do not meet this threshold. There has been no serious attempt by the US or Israel to make the international legal case that there was an imminent threat from Iran, and indeed US media are reporting Pentagon and Congressional sources saying there was none.
No efforts have been made to convince the UN Security Council that the war is necessary, nor has President Trump sought approval from the US Congress.
Rationalisations for the war by the US and Israel have also included criticisms of Iran’s brutal internal repression, but they have offered no strategy for protecting or empowering civilians. Quite the opposite: the US Secretary of War has said there will be “no stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars.”
The US president has stated his disregard for international law, and the Israeli prime minister is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
The war against Iran has already reportedly claimed hundreds of lives, including children at an Iranian girls’ school that was bombed over the weekend.
Iran in turn is now illegally attacking civilian targets in neighbouring Gulf states which had been advocating against this war and playing a crucial role in mediating diplomatic talks. This escalation is driven by the destructive logic that violence and disruption are the ways to show strength. Multilateralism and diplomacy are needed to counter, restrain, prevent and ultimately provide an alternative to this logic of war.
Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear capabilities were not exhausted, despite the US and Israeli claims that this attack on Iran was needed to prevent Tehran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Not only were talks ongoing, but Omani mediators also say a deal was in reach.
Nuclear diplomacy has proven effective in the past: the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, endorsed by UNSCR 2231, and verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), held until the US unilaterally withdrew under the first Trump administration in 2016. Negotiations towards a renewed nuclear deal were also taking place in 2025 when Israel and then the US illegally attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities that were under IAEA safeguards.
Precise accounts will differ, and Iran has engaged in dangerous brinkmanship with the nuclear issue, including by making threats that it might obtain a nuclear weapon in future. Nonetheless, the fact that two nuclear-armed states have again launched a war against a non-nuclear state in the name of non-proliferation, even as talks were taking place, represents a serious blow to the legal architecture that has held proliferation in check for decades.
It is evident that the reasons for war go beyond the nuclear issue, and that the US and Israel have wider aims to either decapitate or collapse the Iranian political system. For their part, the UK and some of its international partners have been reluctant to condemn the attacks, including the assassination of Iran’s head of state, the Ayatollah Khamenei. They are concerned about openly criticising the US. They are also mindful of their adversarial relationship with Iran and its destabilising and dangerous behaviour including repression at home, state threats against dissidents abroad, and sponsorship of non-state armed groups in conflict with Israel. However international law is clear on the prohibition of violent regime change.
International law draws on an accumulation of human wisdom. The costs of illegal and unilateral action have been demonstrated not only in the twentieth century but in recent experience in the Middle East where violent regime change has not brought democracy, human rights or peace. Moreover, when law and norms are ignored in some cases, it becomes easier for rival states to ignore them elsewhere.
Jane Kinninmont –
CEO of UNA-UK
The UK was right not to be part of initiating an ill-conceived, unilateral war with no legal mandate and no clear exit strategy. In an evolving and unpredictable situation, it should work with its longstanding Gulf partners, as well as with Turkey and European partners, to seek ways to stop the war from spreading further. For example, this might include a proposal for a cessation of Iranian hostilities against Gulf states, and working with France to reduce the escalation now underway with Lebanon, while ensuring that the war with Iran does not distract diplomats from monitoring the rising tensions in Palestine, where Israel has again closed Gaza’s borders.
In its response, the UK should align itself with those European leaders that have spoken clearly about the nature of this war. Focusing only on the illegal nature of Iran’s actions against the Gulf, without acknowledging the context of the attack on Iran, makes the UK’s position less credible. Furthermore, this stance would be counterproductive for the UK both at the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference and in its efforts to build wider international solidarity with Ukraine and other countries that might face aggression in the future.
UNA-UK Newsletter
Never miss an update, sign-up today.
Subscribe
International’
Thats just for starters
theres plenty on this subject to debunk any ideology that this is a legal war