Serious Human Rights Violations under the “Preemptive Strike” Doctrine.

Summary

This article examines the coordinated Israeli-US military strikes against Iran on June 13, 2025, conducted under the pretext of the preemptive strike doctrine. The central argument is that this doctrine, in the absence of credible evidence of an imminent threat, has become a tool for violating human rights and international law. The attacks targeted Iran's nuclear facilities, military bases, and residential areas, resulting in civilian deaths, destruction of critical infrastructure, and violations of legal principles such as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. The primary challenge highlighted is the lack of legal and ethical legitimacy of these attacks due to the lack of evidence of an immediate threat and the widespread harm to civilians. These actions not only violated Iran's sovereignty but also caused profound human and social consequences, undermining trust in international institutions such as the UN and the IAEA and fueling regional instability. The article concludes that the doctrine of preemptive strike must be reevaluated and international accountability mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court, strengthened to prevent its abuse as a justification for aggression and human rights violations. It argues that a commitment to justice and human dignity is essential to ensuring global peace and security.

Introduction

On the morning of June 12, 2025, the world witnessed one of the largest military operations in decades—a coordinated attack by Israel and the United States that targeted Iran's nuclear facilities, military bases, and even residential areas. This operation, justified as a "preemptive strike" to neutralize a potential security threat, not only devastated Iran's critical infrastructure but also wiped out hundreds of civilian lives in a matter of seconds. Official statistics from Iran's Forensic Medicine Organization report 935 victims, including 38 children, 102 women (some pregnant), and dozens of scientists and ordinary citizens.

Here, a fundamental question arises: Can such attacks—even when framed as threat prevention—be justified within the framework of international law and the ethics of war? This article, after critically examining the doctrine of preemptive strike, not only analyzes the legal dimensions of these attacks but also raises profound ethical questions: Can the international community remain silent in the face of such flagrant human rights violations? Should security doctrines take precedence over international law—the product of decades of efforts to curb war? The answers to these questions will not only shape the future of international relations, but will also determine whether humanity can free itself from the cycle of vengeful violence.

The Doctrine of Preemptive Strike: Legal Foundations and Challenges

The preemptive strike doctrine is rooted in the concept of self-defense, as recognized in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which allows states to respond to an "armed attack" as long as the response is proportionate and necessary. However, the interpretation of this doctrine, particularly with regard to preemptive strikes undertaken before a real attack occurs, has long been controversial.

From a legal perspective, the legitimacy of a preemptive strike depends on the existence of an “imminent, immediate, and unavoidable” threat, as established in the landmark Caroline Case (1837). This case established a precedent that preemptive action is justified only when the threat is so imminent that no non-military alternatives remain. In the case of the recent attacks on Iran, neither the United States nor Israel have provided credible public evidence of such an imminent threat from Iran. This absence of evidence makes the attacks an act of aggression under international law, violating the principle of the prohibition of the use of force in international relations, as outlined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974).

Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Amir Saeid Iravani described the attacks as a “declaration of war” and a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which emphasizes respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. This position aligns with legal arguments presented in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in cases such as Nicaragua v. United States (1986), where the Court held that any military action without legal justification constitutes a violation of national sovereignty.

From an ethical perspective, the preemptive strike doctrine poses profound challenges to the principles of ethics and global justice. Legal philosophers such as Immanuel Kant emphasize the importance of respecting human autonomy and dignity. Preemptive strikes lacking solid evidence undermine these principles, promoting cycles of violence and mistrust rather than improving security. Similarly, John Rawls, in his theory of justice, emphasizes the need for fair rules in international relations, arguing that military actions must be based on global consensus and shared ethical principles. The lack of transparency and accountability in recent attacks makes them ethically indefensible.

Human Rights Violations in Recent Attacks

Coordinated Israeli-US attacks against Iran have not only targeted military and nuclear facilities but have also caused extensive damage to residential areas. For example, the attack on a house in Astaneh-ye Ashrafiyeh, Gilan, which killed 16 people and injured 26, represents a clear violation of the principle of distinction in international humanitarian law. This principle, enshrined in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (1977), obliges states to differentiate between military and civilian targets. Reports indicate that 90 percent of the victims were civilians, including women, children, and scientists involved in Iran's peaceful nuclear program.

Targeting nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, such as those at Fordo and Natanz, constitutes a violation of international obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The 2024 IAEA report confirmed Iran's compliance with its safeguards obligations. However, the attacks, conducted with US GBU-57A/B bunker-buster bombs, not only damaged the nuclear infrastructure but also inflicted significant damage to surrounding civilian areas. These actions violate the principle of proportionality in humanitarian law, which stipulates that civilian harm must not outweigh the anticipated military advantage.

From a philosophical perspective, the killing of civilians and scientists violates the principle of human dignity, emphasized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and in modern ethical frameworks such as Kant's deontological ethics. Targeting scientists not only violates the right to life but also undermines academic freedom and the right to scientific advancement, as recognized in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Human and Ethical Consequences

The coordinated military attacks by Israel and the United States against Iran have had profound human, social, and ethical consequences that go far beyond material damage. These attacks, which targeted nuclear facilities, military bases, and residential areas, not only devastated Iran's critical infrastructure but also severely disrupted the daily lives of ordinary citizens, resulting in clear violations of fundamental human rights.

The destruction of vital infrastructure, such as water and electricity facilities near the nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan, has disrupted access to essential services such as clean water, electricity, and sanitation. For example, World Health Organization (WHO) reports from June 2025 highlighted that prolonged power outages in rural areas around Natanz have severely compromised hospital operations, leading to the deaths of several patients dependent on medical equipment such as ventilators. This constitutes a direct violation of the right to essential services, recognized as part of the right to life and health in UN General Assembly Resolution 64/292 (2010).

Furthermore, attacks on residential areas have created widespread fear and insecurity among civilians. Amnesty International reports from 2025 documented an increase in mental health problems, including anxiety and depression, among residents of the affected areas. These attacks not only claimed lives, but also eroded the social fabric of local communities and triggered internal displacement. For example, the destruction of homes near nuclear facilities in Isfahan displaced thousands of people, with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reporting that over 5.000 people were moved to temporary camps in the months following the attacks.

These actions, targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, violated the principle of distinction under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions (1977) and caused excessive collateral damage, violating the principle of proportionality, which prohibits civilian harm disproportionate to military gains. Ethically, these attacks conflict with the principles of global justice and human dignity. Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum's capabilities approach holds that every individual should have the opportunity to thrive and realize their human potential, including the rights to life, health, education, and security. The destruction of critical infrastructure and the killing of civilians, including scientists, researchers, and academics, has deprived the Iranian people of these capabilities.

Ethically, these attacks contradict Immanuel Kant's deontological principle, which insists that human beings should be treated as ends, not means. Targeting nuclear scientists and civilians, under the pretext of mitigating alleged threats, has reduced human lives to instruments for political and military objectives, ignoring their intrinsic dignity and undermining universal ethical values. Furthermore, the attacks have significantly eroded trust in international institutions such as the UN and the IAEA. UN reports from 2025 indicate growing cynicism among Iranians regarding these institutions' ability to ensure justice and peace. This distrust has fueled regional instability, as local and regional groups, lacking international accountability, have resorted to retaliatory actions. For example, a UN Security Council report noted an increase in militant group activity in the region following the attacks, escalating tensions across the Middle East.

International Reactions: Condemnations and Silences

The coordinated military strikes by Israel and the United States against Iran on June 13, 2025, sparked widespread reactions from the international community, primarily emphasizing the illegality of these actions and their flagrant violations of human rights. However, the silence or lack of explicit condemnation by certain countries, institutions, and political parties regarding these attacks, which constitute serious violations of human rights and international law, raises critical questions about the global community's commitment to justice and accountability. This section examines the global condemnations, analyzing the reasons and implications of some international actors' reticence.

Widespread Condemnations

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, condemned the attacks as a clear violation of Iran's sovereignty and a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of a state. Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the actions "endangered regional stability" and called for an international investigation. Qatar, whose Al Udeid military base was targeted in Iran's response, labeled the attacks a "threat to regional peace" and stressed the need to respect state sovereignty.

In addition to the Gulf region, Pakistan, Jordan, and Armenia issued strong responses. Pakistan's Foreign Minister described the attacks as "destabilizing" and a "violation of fundamental principles of international law," urging the UN Security Council to intervene. Jordan called the actions a "danger to global peace," emphasizing adherence to the UN Charter. Armenia, citing the history of regional tensions, deemed the attacks "unjustifiable" and called on the international community to prevent further escalation.

Russia, as one of Iran's closest allies, has taken a firm and unequivocal stance in condemning these attacks. In a statement issued on June 24, 2025, the Russian Foreign Ministry described the attacks as "a blatant aggression against the territory of a sovereign state" and "a gross violation of the UN Charter and the principles of international law." Moscow further characterized these actions as part of "a persistent pattern of Israeli and US aggression in the region," warning that the attacks could lead to "an escalation of regional conflicts and widespread instability." Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, referring to Israel's previous attacks on Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza in recent years, condemned the attacks as "an attempt to weaken nations opposing Western hegemony." In his remarks, Lavrov called for international sanctions against those responsible for the attacks, emphasizing that such military actions undermine global security and violate the fundamental norms of international relations.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), led by India and South Africa, also condemned the attacks in a joint statement to the UN General Assembly. India, a key member of the NAM, emphasized that targeting nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards not only violates international law but also undermines confidence in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). These reactions reflect widespread concern about the implications of the attacks for the global order.

International organizations have also responded. Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied territories, condemned the attacks for killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure, such as residential areas near nuclear facilities, labeling them a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and a "potential war crime." The International Criminal Court (ICC) announced it is investigating the attacks as possible war crimes, particularly for violating the principles of distinction and proportionality in international humanitarian law. ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan stated in X that "targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, such as Evin Prison, requires an urgent investigation." Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have issued reports highlighting human rights violations, including the right to life and access to essential services. For example, Amnesty's June 2025 report cited the destruction of water and electricity facilities near Natanz as a violation of UN General Assembly Resolution 64/292 (2010), which recognizes the right to water.

Lack of Explicit Condemnation

Despite widespread condemnation, certain countries, institutions, and political parties have refrained from explicitly denouncing the attacks or have adopted ambiguous positions, prompting criticism of double standards and political considerations in addressing human rights violations.

Some Western nations, particularly the United Kingdom and France, permanent members of the UN Security Council, have refrained from issuing clear condemnations. Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian diplomat, noted in an interview with Bloomberg that neither the Security Council nor the IAEA Board of Governors have issued even a basic statement condemning the attacks, let alone supporting Iran. Users on X have highlighted this silence as a sign of deeper mistrust in the West, particularly given the lack of confirmation from the United Nations or intelligence agencies of an imminent threat from Iran. This reticence likely stems from strategic alliances with the United States and Israel, contrasting with these countries' swift responses to human rights violations elsewhere, such as in Africa.

The United Nations Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors have also failed to issue explicit condemnations. Alireza Jahangiri, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister, attributed this inaction to the influence of certain permanent members of the Security Council who "established the UN Charter but in practice protect the aggressors." This silence has eroded trust in international institutions, with X users pointing to it as evidence of their ineffectiveness against Western powers.

Certain political parties in Western countries, particularly conservative factions in Europe and the United States, have avoided condemning the attacks or have justified them as "defensive measures." These positions, often citing the preemptive strike doctrine without credible evidence of an Iranian threat, have faced criticism in the international media. For example, some members of the US Congress have refrained from condemning them, a position attributed to domestic political pressure and pro-Israel lobbying.

Conclusion

The recent attacks by Israel and the United States against Iran, conducted under the guise of the preemptive strike doctrine, lack legal legitimacy and constitute acts of aggression and potential war crimes due to the killing of civilians, destruction of civilian infrastructure, and violations of fundamental human rights principles. From a legal perspective, these actions contravene Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Ethically, they undermine the principles of human dignity, global justice, and autonomy, perpetuating a cycle of violence and instability.

To prevent a repetition of such actions, the international community must urgently strengthen oversight and accountability mechanisms. This includes empowering the International Criminal Court (ICC) to conduct thorough and impartial investigations into potential war crimes, such as those evident in the targeting of civilian areas like Astaneh-ye Ashrafiyeh. The UN Security Council, despite its frequent paralysis due to veto powers, must reform its processes to ensure swift and impartial responses to violations of international law. Furthermore, regional organizations and coalitions, such as the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), should play a more proactive role in advocating for adherence to the UN Charter and promoting dialogue to de-escalate conflicts. The preemptive strike doctrine, when applied without robust evidence of an imminent threat and strict adherence to international legal principles, risks becoming a pretext for aggression and human rights abuses, as demonstrated by the lack of credible justification for the 2025 attacks against Iran.

This article argues that a fundamental reassessment of the preemptive strike doctrine is essential to prevent its abuse. Such a revision should establish more rigorous criteria for what constitutes an "imminent threat," requiring transparent and verifiable evidence subject to international scrutiny. Furthermore, strengthening a global commitment to justice and human dignity—rooted in ethical frameworks such as those of Kant and Rawls—offers the only viable path to ensuring lasting peace and security. By prioritizing accountability, transparency, and respect for sovereignty, the international community can break the cycle of violence and build a more equitable global order.

Prof. Sayyid Abbas Hosseinisa