Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

bigtree

(94,337 posts)
Sun Mar 1, 2026, 10:46 AM Mar 1

This makes it abundantly clear the Iran strike isn't legal [View all]



I am not a law of war expert. I don’t play one on TV. But I wanted to share some basic principles and offer some suggestions for further reading as we watch the news unfold in Iran. The White House hasn’t offered the public a reason for the attack on Iran that would make it legal, and CNN is reporting they haven’t provided a “full accounting” to members of Congress either. This afternoon, Jake Sherman at Punchbowl News reported that “A senior Trump administration official said that U.S. intelligence ‘had indicators’ that the Iranians were going to use their missiles ‘preemptively, but if not, simultaneous’ to any American action on Iran.”

But if the real reason for our attack was warding off casualties from an Iranian first strike, you would have expected to hear the White House using that explanation from the start, which they didn’t. And now that we have struck, we haven’t seen any proportional response, “simultaneous” or otherwise, from Iran. The legality of the U.S. strike is, at best, highly questionable.

Of course, we all know that under the Constitution, Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war. We also know that for the past few decades, the executive branch has been assuming more of that power, adopting a “beg for forgiveness,” rather than an “ask for permission” stance. But no one has been as brazen about it as Donald Trump, who has bombed 7 different countries in just over a year in office and is at in a second time in Iran, after claiming, in June 2025, that he had “obliterated” their nuclear program. It’s not a good thing when the man with the nuclear codes is punch-drunk on the amount of power at his disposal, and it behooves us all to keep a close watch.

The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state in Article 2(4), which reads, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” Launching attacks, like the U.S. strike on Iran, is generally illegal. There are exceptions for self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51) or an attack authorized by the Security Council, but neither of those is in play here.



Treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate, like the UN Charter, have the status of federal laws under Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution, which reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” (emphasis added). Upholding them is part of a president’s duties and the oath of office he takes under the “take care” clause of the Constitution.

read more: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-law-of-war
58 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Get thee to the greatest page malaise Mar 1 #1
My sense, trump has been sold on this attack for cachukis Mar 1 #2
Yeah, well, trump don't do that "now what" shit... Wounded Bear Mar 1 #4
Uncharted fog of war. cachukis Mar 1 #5
Yes indeed pfitz59 Mar 1 #14
I'm no longer certain what "illegal" means in America today. sop Mar 1 #3
THIS. MontanaMama Mar 1 #11
Bravo MM popsdenver Mar 1 #33
+1 leftstreet Mar 1 #13
Yup! debsy Mar 1 #50
Seems like the attack falls into high crimes and misdemeanors territory JT45242 Mar 1 #6
K&R spanone Mar 1 #7
Trump is trying to force the Congress to accept this quagmire, Baitball Blogger Mar 1 #8
The War Powers Resolution Greg_In_SF Mar 1 #9
they'll never be legally sanctioned for this bigtree Mar 1 #10
Clearly it doesn't matter if it's legal or not bif Mar 1 #12
that's right bigtree Mar 1 #21
The weak, impotent, make-up clad strongman Blue Owl Mar 1 #15
K&R UTUSN Mar 1 #16
I am reminded... GiqueCee Mar 1 #17
yep bigtree Mar 1 #24
I'll never count us out... GiqueCee Mar 1 #29
As I recall, Just Jerome Mar 1 #43
I imagine he repeated that thought... GiqueCee Mar 1 #45
IT doesn't need a "reason" for anything he does. LoisB Mar 1 #18
I'm telling you guys, pushing this line is going to blow back on us. Callie1979 Mar 1 #19
I dunno bigtree Mar 1 #26
I think the odds ARE against him. BUT; what if it WORKS? There's a chance. Callie1979 Mar 1 #31
I think this take is what kept us in Iraq for 10 years. OhioBlue Mar 1 #37
Iran is a much bigger sponsor of terrorists plus being Russia's #1 helper in UKR. Callie1979 Mar 1 #44
Sadly Callie popsdenver Mar 1 #34
Original link... Pluvious Mar 1 #20
Sadly, it's abundantly unclear when serious people like Joyce Vance will be able... Ol Janx Spirit Mar 1 #22
Pres REDACTED! Hahahahahahahahaha love it. Callie1979 Mar 1 #32
Great post bigtree. Thanks. c-rational Mar 1 #23
It wasn't legal, moral, ethical, nor wise Uncle Joe Mar 1 #25
IT is also abundantly clear that Gordcanuck Mar 1 #27
However, Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh would approve. Sneederbunk Mar 1 #28
right bigtree Mar 1 #30
Trump's board of peace ends the United Nations. His Executive of War instructs Generals to disregard Geneva Convention ChicagoTeamster Mar 1 #35
moot in his term bigtree Mar 1 #36
Just like Iraq - Weapons inspector David Kay testified there were no weapons of mass destruction OhioBlue Mar 1 #38
U.S. constitution gives Congress war declaration power DemocracyForever Mar 1 #39
We have been in Greg_In_SF Mar 1 #40
it's a further confirmation of his lawlessness bigtree Mar 1 #41
Was it evidence of the Obama being lawless when he launched attacks? EdmondDantes_ Mar 2 #54
they did them with a coalition of support bigtree Mar 2 #55
So you're willing to accept stretching the legality when you like the president EdmondDantes_ Mar 3 #57
that's a different question bigtree Mar 3 #58
Not sure I agree with your total DemocracyForever Mar 2 #51
It's somewhere Greg_In_SF Mar 2 #52
I think your number is way high DemocracyForever Mar 3 #56
It's too late "to do this the right way." Congressional authorization is required BEFORE going to war Martin Eden Mar 1 #42
So? progressoid Mar 1 #46
There's "good" reason. usonian Mar 1 #47
Trump, and by extension his submissive Republican lackeys, have no use for democracy or the Constitution. n/t Beartracks Mar 1 #48
Oh, but the strikes on Iran were perfectly justifiable. Wednesdays Mar 1 #49
Since when has this administration worried about something being Illegal. republianmushroom Mar 2 #53
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This makes it abundantly ...