International Law, the Attack on Iran, and the Radical Left

Introduction

The recent attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran raise an important question: are these actions consistent with international law, and how should radical leftists respond?

Many governments, international organizations, and legal scholars have argued that the attacks may violate international law, particularly the United Nations Charter. At the same time, the United States, Israel, and their allies reject this interpretation.

This raises a strategic question for the radical left. Should opposition to the attacks be grounded primarily in the claim that they violate international law?

I argue that radical leftists should be cautious about relying on international law as the main basis for criticizing such attacks. Although legal arguments can sometimes be useful tactically, the form of law itself limits its ability to address the structural causes of war and exploitation. International law may therefore be used instrumentally, but it should not be idealized as a mechanism capable of resolving the underlying problems.

The Legal Debate

Under international law, particularly the United Nations Charter, the use of force by one state against another is generally prohibited.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter states that member states shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The main exceptions are:

• self-defense against an armed attack (Article 51), or

• authorization by the United Nations Security Council.

Many legal experts argue that attacks such as those carried out by the United States and Israel against Iran may violate these provisions if they are not clearly justified as self-defense against an imminent threat or authorized by the Security Council.

Several governments and organizations have raised concerns about the legality of the attacks. Officials in countries such as Spain and Italy have criticized them as potentially inconsistent with international law, while legal experts and organizations such as the International Commission of Jurists have argued that unilateral military strikes without clear legal justification undermine the UN Charter framework.

Human rights organizations have also called for investigations into specific incidents, particularly where civilian infrastructure may have been targeted. Under international humanitarian law, militaries must verify targets, avoid civilian objects such as schools and hospitals, and ensure that civilian harm is not excessive relative to military advantage.

At the same time, the United States, Israel, and some allied governments maintain that the strikes fall within their right of self-defense or otherwise serve legitimate security purposes. As a result, there is significant disagreement over the legal interpretation of the attacks.

Nevertheless, outside the governments directly involved and their closest allies, many states and commentators consider the attacks to be legally questionable.

This raises the question: should the radical left base its opposition to the attacks primarily on their alleged illegality?

The Limits of Legal Critique

A Marxist perspective suggests that relying too heavily on legal arguments may obscure the structural causes of war and conflict.

Robert Knox, in his article “Marxism, International Law, and Political Strategy” (Leiden Journal of International Law, 2009), argues that legal reasoning has inherent limitations. According to Knox, legal argument is both too abstract and too specific to address the underlying causes of social problems.

Legal reasoning is too abstract because it treats actors as formally equal and independent entities. In doing so, it focuses on the actions of states or individuals rather than the broader political and economic structures that shape those actions.

At the same time, legal reasoning is too specific. Legal disputes are framed around particular violations or incidents rather than the systemic processes that produce them. As a result, legal arguments may address the immediate effects of problems such as war or exploitation without confronting their deeper causes.

Knox writes that legal argument “resolves the particular disputes of abstract individuals without ever touching on the logics which shape and condition their actions.” Even when participants in legal debates are aware of broader structural factors, the legal framework forces them to argue within narrow doctrinal boundaries.

In this sense, legal strategies tend to focus on isolated violations while leaving intact the social and economic systems that generate them.

Law and Capitalist Exploitation

The limitations of law become particularly clear when we consider the role that legal systems play in sustaining capitalist social relations. Modern legal systems formally guarantee equality before the law while simultaneously protecting property relations that permit the systematic exploitation of workers. Contracts between employers and workers are treated as voluntary agreements between legally equal individuals, even though they arise from profound inequalities of power and economic necessity. In this sense, law does not merely fail to eliminate exploitation—it provides the framework within which exploitation is organized and legitimized.

From a Marxist perspective, the problem is not simply that legal argument is too narrow to address systemic problems. Legal systems also play an active role in stabilizing capitalist social relations. By protecting property rights and structuring labour contracts, the law provides the institutional framework within which exploitation takes place. The extraction of a surplus of value (profit) from workers across the world occurs largely within legal frameworks that are formally recognized and enforced by states.

Strategic Use of International Law: Principled Opportunism

Recognizing these limitations does not necessarily mean that legal arguments should be abandoned altogether.

Knox proposes what he calls a strategy of “principled opportunism.” According to this approach, progressive movements may sometimes use international law tactically to advance political struggles.

For example, activists and organizations may attempt to influence how international law is interpreted or applied, using legal forums to expose abuses or to hold particular actors accountable. Legal arguments can also serve a political purpose by publicizing injustices and mobilizing public opinion.

However, Knox emphasizes that the transformative potential of such strategies is limited by the legal form itself. Because legal argument operates within the framework of existing institutions and social relations, it cannot by itself challenge the structural foundations of global capitalism.

For this reason, legal arguments should be used instrumentally rather than treated as a primary path to social transformation. As Knox notes, international law should never be pursued simply because it “is law,” but only insofar as it advances the aims of progressive movements.

This perspective implies that legal strategies must remain subordinate to broader political struggles.

Legal Challenges to the Attacks

In practice, legal efforts to challenge the attacks on Iran have so far been limited and preliminary.

One of the most concrete initiatives has been a complaint submitted to the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Iranian Red Crescent Society has reportedly asked the court to investigate U.S. and Israeli strikes as possible war crimes, particularly in relation to attacks on civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools.

However, significant jurisdictional obstacles exist. The United States, Israel, and Iran are not members of the ICC. As a result, the court could only investigate the case if:

• the United Nations Security Council referred it to the court, or

• Iran voluntarily granted jurisdiction for crimes committed on its territory.

Both possibilities face major political obstacles.

Various United Nations experts and human rights organizations have also called for investigations into specific incidents. These efforts typically involve requests for independent inquiries, fact-finding missions, and the preservation of evidence that might later be used in prosecutions.

Some legal scholars have argued that the attacks themselves could potentially constitute the crime of aggression, which refers to the illegal use of force against another state. However, prosecuting such cases is extremely difficult because of the jurisdictional limits of international courts and the political power of major states within the UN system.

As a result, it is unlikely that international legal mechanisms will produce decisive outcomes in the near future.

Implications for the Radical Left

Given these limitations, relying primarily on international law to oppose the attacks is unlikely to be effective.

At the same time, legal arguments may still serve a political function. One possible approach is to use them to expose the hypocrisy of governments that claim to uphold the rule of law domestically while violating it internationally.

For example, the United States government frequently emphasizes the importance of enforcing domestic law, including through aggressive measures against undocumented migrants. Yet the same government may participate in or support military actions that many legal experts consider inconsistent with international law.

Pointing out such contradictions can reveal the selective and political nature of legal discourse. In this way, legal arguments may help undermine the moral authority that governments claim when they present themselves as defenders of law and order.

However, it is important to avoid presenting international law itself as a solution to the underlying problems.

Legal systems—including international law—operate within a global capitalist order that permits the systematic exploitation of workers on a massive scale (see some posts in this blog on the exploitation of workers in Belgium, Canada,China and  the United States). The same legal framework that condemns certain acts of violence also protects property relations and economic structures that generate inequality and exploitation worldwide.

Conclusion

The attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran are widely criticized as violations of international law, and legal challenges may continue to emerge in international institutions. However, structural political and institutional barriers make it unlikely that these mechanisms will produce decisive results in the near future.

For the radical left, the key issue is not simply whether the attacks violate international law, but how legal arguments should be used politically.

A Marxist perspective suggests that law has inherent limitations. Legal argument tends to focus on particular violations while leaving intact the broader social and economic structures that produce war, exploitation, and inequality.

This limitation becomes particularly clear when we consider the role that legal systems play in the global economy. The legal framework of capitalism permits and regulates the systematic extraction of a surplus of value from workers that forms the basis for the profit of private employers. Studies of major corporations—from manufacturing firms to global beverage companies—demonstrate that workers are exploited even in unionized settings despite full compliance with national and international legal systems. In other words, the law may regulate exploitation, but it does not abolish it.

For this reason, international law should not be treated as the primary foundation for opposing such attacks. Instead, it can be used tactically—exposing hypocrisy, publicizing injustices, and supporting broader political struggles—while remaining aware of its limits.

In this sense, the most effective approach may be what Robert Knox describes as principled opportunism: using legal arguments when they advance progressive aims, while recognizing that the deeper transformation of society must occur through political struggle rather than legal reform alone.