Experts say Israel’s campaign in Iran is a lawful preemptive response, challenging old international norms while emphasizing legal limits and oversight.
As the war withIran enters its second week, the tactical successes on the ground are increasingly met by a predictable wall of legal condemnation abroad.
For the international community, the drone footage of strikes on Iranian soil is often framed as a breach of the UN Charter. For Jerusalem, it is the long-overdue exercise of a state’s primary duty.
To unpack the legal architecture supporting this campaign, The Jerusalem Post spoke with Dr. Shuki Friedman, Vice President of the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI). Friedman argues that the conflict is not an assault on the world order, but an effort to restore its basic logic.
The central criticism of the current campaign is that Israel “started” the latest round of kinetic fire. Friedman, however, points to the Caroline Test – the 19th-century standard allowing for strikes when the necessity is “instant and overwhelming.”
“Waiting for a nuclear-threshold state to strike first is a violation of the state’s primary duty to its citizens,” Friedman notes. “The legal bridge is built by proving that the ‘first strike’ is actually a pre-emptive intervention against an ongoing, mobilized threat rather than an unprovoked escalation.”
Fire breaks out at the Shahran oil depot after US and Israeli attacks, leaving numerous fuel tankers and vehicles in the area unusable in Tehran, Iran on March 8, 2026. (credit: Hassan Ghaedi/Anadolu via Getty Images)
In this view, the strike is not the beginning of a war, but the preemptive conclusion of one that has been building for years.
One of the most significant legal shifts in 2026 is the dismantling of the “proxy fiction” that has shielded Tehran for decades. By treating groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen as functional organs of the Iranian state, Israel is pushing for a State Responsibility model.
‘The ‘high bar’ of the UN should be replaced’
“We are indeed at a turning point where Israel is challenging the ‘effective control’ standard,” says Friedman. “If a state arms, funds, and provides the strategic objectives for a group, the ‘high bar’ of the UN should be replaced. The shift is that we are pushing for a ‘functional’ definition of warfare.”
The argument that international law is not a “collective suicide pact” has become a cornerstone of the Israeli defense. However, Friedman is careful to balance this with a commitment to the core tenets of the laws of war: Necessity and Proportionality.
“Even when facing an existential threat, the law requires that military actions must be limited to what is strictly necessary to neutralize that specific threat,” Friedman explains.
“Rather than abandoning the law, Israel argues for an interpretative evolution. The rules must be applied to the reality of non-state actors and nuclear proliferation, ensuring the law remains a shield for the victim, not a weapon for the aggressor.”
While the external front is dominated by the ICC and talk of sanctions, Friedman highlights a different kind of danger at home. A permanent state of war creates a unique stress test for any democracy, risking a scenario where “security necessity” becomes a permanent bypass for civilian checks and balances.
“The primary risk is that ‘security necessity’ can be used to bypass the checks and balances of the judiciary,” and parliament, Friedman warns.
“The solution is ensuring that the legal leeway given to the military remains transparent and subject to judicial review. Even during a multi-decade conflict, the domestic system must maintain its ‘stateness’ – the idea that the law is higher than any temporary political or security interest.”
Ultimately, Friedman suggests that Israel’s greatest defense – both abroad and at home – is the preservation of its own democratic resilience.
“Being legally right is no longer a guarantee of diplomatic immunity,” he explains, noting that legal merit alone struggles against the tide of “normative anti-Zionism.” In this environment, the strength of Israel’s internal legal system remains the last line of defense.