The National Interest Foundation Newsletter

Issue 291, June 25, 2025

Welcome to our NIF Newsletter. In this week’s edition, we look into how this past Saturday’s U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites prompted concern regarding a widening conflict and further escalations, while also providing analysis on whether or not the U.S. strikes against Iran were legal under international law.

Editor: Bassam Tarbush

U.S. Attacks on Iranian Nuclear Sites Prompt Concern Regarding a Widening Conflict and Further Escalations

The attacks this past weekend marked the first act of direct U.S. involvement in the hostilities between Israel and Iran. (Photo from Reuters)

The Trump administration’s decision to carry out massive B-2 stealth bomber attacks on the three Iranian nuclear facilities of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan last Saturday abruptly raised fears of a potential widening Israel-Iran conflict and further escalations. The strikes came around a mere 48 hours after the American president had relayed his intent to make a determination on action against Iran within the next two weeks, with the operation including misdirection as six B-2 bombers were sent to Guam as decoys at the same time that those used in the actual attacks headed east from the continental United States towards Iran. While Trump and other officials in his administration claim that the strikes were a success, the extent of the damage to the sites – in particular the deeply buried facility at Fordow – is unclear, as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remarked that this was “not immediately possible to assess.” In addition to questions over their actual impact, most importantly, the attacks prompted unease regarding the type of retaliation that Iran was likely to take against the U.S. and how the ongoing situation could devolve as a result of the United States’ direct insertion into the Israel-Iran conflict.

As outlined in our newsletter last week, the United States’ involvement in Israel’s war on Iran unnecessarily puts Americans in harm’s way and severely imperils detrimental consequences. This is precisely why an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the prospect of war with Iran, and a plurality believe that President Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities make the United States less safe. In line with what was anticipated to unfold following the U.S. strikes, Iran did in fact retaliate earlier this week with a missile attack on an American military base in Qatar. Some experts contend that Iran’s response was aimed at following through on its threats to retaliate to direct U.S. attacks, but without spurring further actions against it. Even as all of the missiles were intercepted and no one was reported to be killed or injured, the incident highlighted the needless and avoidable escalations arising from decisions such as that taken by the Trump administration this past Saturday. Rather than implore Israel to cease its bellicose attacks on Iran and bring about an end to the troubling recent outbreak of hostilities, the determination to instead join Israel in its attacks merely risked further escalations and devolvement.

For this reason, news of the U.S. attacks on multiple Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend was met with alarm and grave concern. Various governments in the Middle East had warned that the strikes endangered destabilizing an already precarious situation. Additionally, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres condemned the use of force, calling the U.S. strikes “a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge.” The initiation of reckless direct attacks is made even more regrettable considering that early intelligence assessments – including ones from the Pentagon – suggest that Iran’s nuclear program was only set back by a few months, contrary to claims from Trump administration officials that it has been “obliterated.” This might lead one to justifiably question why American security and national interests are being jeopardized for perilous military actions that do not even achieve their alleged objectives. Above all, the attacks could have sparked intensified conflict that directly threatened U.S. servicemembers, citizens, and assets, and for what practical purpose, given that the strikes are unlikely to halt Iran’s nuclear activities and could even spur it to pursue these more aggressively.

In the preceding days, President Trump announced that a fragile ceasefire had taken effect between Israel and Iran. This came amid the American president lashing out over violations of the truce and censuring Israel for its bombings after it had been reached. There have been indications that Israeli officials were keen on reaching a ceasefire and contacted Trump to help broker this due to the heavy depletion of interceptor missiles. Over the past week, outlets had reported that Israel was facing a critical shortage, and that the United States itself has depleted much of its own regional interceptor stockpile by transferring them in massive quantities to Israel. Thus, there was also a growing fear among U.S. officials that its own defenses could soon be compromised as a result of the use of interceptors at what Navy admirals referred to as an “alarming rate” during a recent Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. It remains to be seen in the coming days if the cessation of hostilities between Israel and Iran will ultimately hold. Regardless, the Trump administration’s dangerous decision to launch direct attacks on Iran was an irresponsible gamble that could have easily entangled the United States into a deepening regional conflict, and it can only be hoped that this has been averted, at least for now.

Analysis on Whether or Not the U.S. Strikes Against Iran Were Legal Under International Law

The strikes elicited opposition for their illegality as well as the possibility that they will entangle the United States into another conflict in the Middle East. (Photo from Getty Images)

In the aftermath of the Trump administration’s recent strikes on multiple nuclear sites in Iran, legal experts and commentators have provided their insight into the legitimacy – or lack thereof – of the United States’ military actions. When looking into the elements surrounding the decision and the justification put forth for it, most legal observers have deemed that the strikes were illegal. Under the framework of the United Nations (UN) Charter, there are only two scenarios in which a nation can lawfully use force against another – with neither of these being present in the case of what transpired between the United States and Iran. These consist of either: 1) a UN Security Council authorization of force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security or 2) the right of self-defense when one state is attacked by another. Additionally, there are serious issues with any attempts to make an argument for a “preemptive” or “deterrent” strike as well, given that there was no indication whatsoever of a potential imminent attack by Iran against the United States – something that would be needed in order to provide this type of reasoning.

As analysts have been quick to point out, an imminent threat from Iran warranting “preemptive” or “deterrent” U.S. action requires the former possessing nuclear weapons capability and the intent to use this. On this note, the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has consistently expressed that the Iranian regime lacks this – an important aspect that therefore dismisses any purported notion that preventative action is necessary or legal. The alleged rationale used in favor of the Trump administration’s attacks is built on the falsehood that Iran is dangerously close to acquiring or already has nuclear weapons capabilities. Instead, fair and impartial entities understand that the truth of the matter is these inaccurate and reckless claims have been pushed for decades as an attempt to justify bellicose behavior against Iran. Perpetuating fallacies like this is harmful enough, but this is made all the more troubling by the fact that its use as “reasoning” for offensive military actions could also set a concerning precedent for similar potential future behavior by other countries too.

The highly problematic nature of the Trump administration’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities has even compelled major U.S. allies such as France to remark about their unlawfulness. Earlier this week, French President Emmanuel Macron commented that they violated international law, adding that the United States lacked “a legal framework” for its military actions. For French officials and others, the only way to adequately rein in Iran’s nuclear program is through diplomatic channels that culminate in a widely backed international agreement, as was the case with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Ironically, the use of force against Iran could prove to be counterproductive as well, propelling the regime to pursue the very nuclear weapons that effective diplomacy was helping to curtail. The United Kingdom, Canada, the United Nations, and the European Union are among those that have joined France in urging for a return to the negotiating table.

The illegality of the recent attacks on Iran and concerns that they will drag the United States into yet another destructive war in the Middle East have garnered demonstrations across the country, with protesters condemning the airstrikes as violations of international law that threaten possible catastrophic consequences. Activists have accused President Trump of breaking campaign promises not to entangle the U.S. in unpredictable and costly foreign conflicts, outlining how his actions run counter to vows to end “forever” wars and be a peacemaker in the Middle East and elsewhere. They have also drawn attention to the alarming similarities in rhetoric between what is taking place now and the lead up to the Iraq War back in the early 2000s when fearmongering over nonexistent “weapons of mass destruction” plunged the U.S. into a disastrous conflict in the region. Rather than directing efforts and resources towards actions that risk igniting a massive conflagration in the Middle East, responsible citizens are calling for the administration to focus on domestic priorities that impact everyday Americans.