Operation Rising Lion: Legal Challenges and Impacts

Operation Rising Lion marks a significant escalation in Middle Eastern conflict dynamics, initiated by Israel’s airstrikes on Iran in June 2025. Launched on June 13, the operation targeted key Iranian infrastructure, including military bases, nuclear development facilities, and suspected missile sites. Within hours, the offensive provoked Iranian retaliation, igniting one of the most intense state-on-state confrontations in the region since the Gulf War.

The operation's stated aim was to neutralize what Israel identified as an imminent threat from Iran’s advancing nuclear capabilities. The strikes were described by Israeli officials as a defensive necessity to protect national security and regional stability. However, the scale, timing, and targets of Operation Rising Lion have raised grave concerns about its legality under international law. Civilian casualties in Iran, including damage to hospitals and media outlets, have prompted allegations of disproportionate force and violations of international humanitarian principles.

This article critically examines Operation Rising Lion in light of international legal standards governing both the jus ad bellum—the legality of resorting to force—and the jus in bello—the conduct of hostilities. By analyzing the operation through legal precedents, international reactions, and core doctrines of the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions, this piece aims to assess its legitimacy and explore its broader consequences for international order and the rule of law.

Jus ad Bellum: Legality of Use of Force

The legal framework governing the use of force between states is grounded in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Operation Rising Lion, carried out by Israel against Iran, raises immediate questions concerning its justification under jus ad bellum, particularly claims of self-defence, the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence, and potential classification as an act of aggression.

Self-Defence Under Article 51 of the UN Charter

Israel has invoked Article 51 to justify its actions, citing an existential threat posed by Iran’s accelerated nuclear development and the presence of hostile proxies near its borders. Under international law, a state may respond with force if it suffers an armed attack or faces an imminent one. However, the principle of necessity requires that no alternative means are available to address the threat, and the response must be proportionate to the scale of the danger.

In this case, no verifiable armed attack by Iran directly preceded the strikes. Moreover, reports indicated that negotiations between the IAEA and Iranian authorities were still underway when the operation commenced. This weakens the legal foundation for Israel’s reliance on Article 51. Iran, in its communication to the UN Security Council, argued that the Israeli assault was unprovoked and constituted an unlawful act of aggression.

Anticipatory Self-Defence and the Imminence Standard

The doctrine of anticipatory self-defence—preempting an imminent attack before it occurs—remains a contentious concept. While some states, including the United States and Israel, support a broader interpretation, customary international law and the majority of legal scholarship still require a high threshold of imminence. The Caroline case (1837), often cited as the origin of the principle, defined it as an "instant, overwhelming necessity" with no time for deliberation.

Operation Rising Lion does not appear to meet this standard. Analysts note that while Iran's nuclear program may raise legitimate security concerns, no clear evidence of an impending strike was presented. Israeli officials based the operation on strategic calculations rather than immediate threats, which shifts the legal framing from self-defence to preemptive or even preventive war—a position not supported by most interpretations of international law.

Aggression and Unilateral Force

Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a state can be held accountable for the crime of aggression if it uses armed force in contravention of the UN Charter. Given that the strikes were launched without Security Council authorization and absent a prior armed attack, Operation Rising Lion could qualify under this category. Legal scholars such as Dapo Akande and Marko Milanović have pointed out that such unilateral military actions erode collective security principles and set a dangerous precedent for international relations.

The United Nations has not authorized any use of force against Iran. Furthermore, multiple states—including members of the Non-Aligned Movement and European legal bodies—have condemned the operation as unlawful. The ICJ has not ruled on the case yet, but the legal and moral condemnation reflects the operation’s contested status in the framework of jus ad bellum.

Jus in Bello: Conduct of Hostilities

While jus ad bellum addresses the legality of resorting to force, jus in bello—also known as international humanitarian law (IHL)—governs how force is used once a conflict has begun. Operation Rising Lion must therefore be evaluated under the core principles of IHL: distinction, proportionality, military necessity, and precaution. These rules are codified primarily in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, as well as customary international law.

Distinction Between Combatants and Civilians

The principle of distinction requires all parties to a conflict to differentiate at all times between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects. During Operation Rising Lion, Israeli airstrikes reportedly hit military infrastructure, including IRGC bases and radar installations, but also civilian sites such as hospitals, a university campus in Isfahan, and a state television broadcast center.

Under IHL, attacks must be directed exclusively at military objectives. Civilian objects may only be lawfully targeted if they are being used for military purposes and their destruction offers a definite military advantage. Independent investigations—including statements from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)—indicated a lack of evidence that certain civilian sites targeted had lost their protected status under IHL. This raises serious concerns regarding violations of the principle of distinction.

Proportionality and Collateral Damage

Even when a target is legitimate, the proportionality principle prohibits attacks if the expected incidental civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. According to credible sources, Iranian casualties exceeded 220 individuals, including numerous civilians. Key infrastructure in Tehran, Shiraz, and Esfahan was severely damaged. In contrast, Israel reported minimal direct damage from Iranian retaliation.

The scale of destruction caused by the Israeli strikes has drawn criticism for being excessive relative to any demonstrated threat or military gain. While Israel claimed the destruction of suspected nuclear sites was necessary to delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, legal scholars argue that such a rationale does not justify the resulting civilian toll under IHL’s proportionality test.

Precaution in Attack

Belligerents must take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians. This includes selecting means and methods of warfare that reduce risk, verifying targets, and issuing effective advance warnings where possible. Reports indicate that Operation Rising Lion involved precision-guided munitions, but there is limited evidence that prior warnings were given to civilians in targeted zones—particularly in urban areas like Shiraz and Qom.

In the absence of transparent information about Israel’s targeting procedures and mitigation efforts, it is difficult to assess compliance. However, the ICRC and UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) noted that repeated hits on densely populated civilian zones suggest either failure to take precautions or deliberate disregard.

Possible War Crimes

Allegations of war crimes have been raised in connection with attacks on hospitals and non-military infrastructure. If proven that civilian objects were deliberately targeted or that disproportionate force was used despite foreseeable civilian harm, these actions may qualify as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Documentation of these incidents is being collected by international monitoring bodies, and human rights organizations have called for an impartial investigation under UN auspices.

The conduct of hostilities during Operation Rising Lion appears to violate several core tenets of international humanitarian law. As evidence mounts, the legal implications may extend beyond diplomatic condemnation to possible international accountability for those responsible.

State Responses & International Reaction

The legal and geopolitical ramifications of Operation Rising Lion have prompted swift and diverse reactions from states, international organizations, and legal institutions. These responses not only shape the narrative surrounding the operation’s legality but also influence its long-term consequences for international peace and security. This section evaluates the diplomatic, legal, and political fallout through three primary lenses: Iran’s defense claims, the global response, and the implications for nuclear governance.

Iran’s Defense Claims and Legal Justification

In the immediate aftermath of Israel’s strikes, Iran submitted an official letter to the President of the United Nations Security Council, invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter. Tehran argued that its missile counterattacks against Israeli military installations constituted an act of self-defence. According to Iran, the scale and timing of Operation Rising Lion represented a clear case of aggression, leaving no choice but to respond to preserve national sovereignty.

Iran’s narrative emphasized that its retaliatory actions were precise, targeting exclusively military assets and avoiding major civilian areas. Iranian officials also called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting, urging international condemnation of Israel and proposing a resolution to reaffirm the prohibition of unilateral strikes under international law.

Global Diplomatic Reactions

Strong Condemnation

Numerous countries, including members of the Non-Aligned Movement, the European Union, and regional powers such as Turkey and South Africa, condemned Israel’s actions as a violation of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice issued a public statement reminding all parties of their obligations under jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Australia, Ireland, and Brazil echoed calls for restraint and emphasized the importance of multilateralism in resolving disputes.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern over the “extensive civilian harm and potential war crimes.” In parallel, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran urged independent investigations into the destruction of hospitals and civilian infrastructure.

U.S. and Allied Responses

The United States maintained a neutral yet cautious stance. Former President Donald Trump, who returned to office in January 2025, called on both parties to de-escalate the situation, while refusing to openly endorse Israel’s actions. The lack of direct U.S. support drew criticism from Israeli officials but also reflected Washington’s concern over being dragged into another regional conflict. NATO issued a brief statement recognizing Israel’s right to security while stressing the importance of proportionality and civilian protection.

Regional Volatility

The Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation convened emergency summits, calling the operation a “dangerous precedent” that could destabilize the region. Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon all condemned the strikes and warned of the risk of wider military escalation. Several states in the Gulf Cooperation Council expressed alarm over the attack’s potential to derail ongoing negotiations on regional non-proliferation and arms control.

Implications for Nuclear Governance and International Norms

Israel is widely recognized as a de facto nuclear power but remains outside the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This status, combined with its offensive against Iran—a signatory of the NPT—has reignited debates over nuclear double standards and the legitimacy of unilateral military actions aimed at curbing proliferation.

Critics argue that Operation Rising Lion undermines the authority of international institutions like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). At the time of the strike, Iran was still engaged in IAEA-monitored negotiations. The destruction of nuclear facilities under inspection risks politicizing the agency’s mandate and discouraging states from cooperating with international safeguards mechanisms in the future.

Calls have emerged from multiple quarters—including academic institutions and civil society organizations—for a UN-led investigation into the strikes’ impact on the global non-proliferation regime. Legal experts suggest that the operation could set a dangerous precedent for preventive attacks under the guise of self-defence, weakening the stability of international legal norms.

The broad and largely critical international response to Operation Rising Lion highlights its controversial nature under international law. The absence of UN authorization, widespread civilian harm, and the preemptive nature of the attack have placed Israel in a legally precarious position. These developments underscore the pressing need for clearer enforcement mechanisms and diplomatic strategies to address future crises of similar magnitude.

Legal Precedents and Future Implications

Operation Rising Lion has triggered legal and political discourse that extends well beyond the immediate Israel–Iran confrontation. Its execution and aftermath have reignited long-standing debates in international law concerning unilateral force, anticipatory self-defence, and the enforcement of international norms. This section explores historical parallels, the potential erosion of legal standards, and the broader implications for international peace and security.

Historical Comparisons: The Begin Doctrine and Preventive Strikes

Israel’s 2025 operation mirrors its 1981 airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, known as Operation Opera. At that time, Israel defended the action as necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons. The global reaction was overwhelmingly negative, and the UN Security Council unanimously condemned the strike (Resolution 487), declaring it a violation of international law.

Legal scholars often cite Operation Opera as the origin of the Begin Doctrine, a unilateral policy of preventive military action against existential threats, particularly nuclear programs. Operation Rising Lion appears to be an updated application of this doctrine—targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in the name of national survival. However, unlike 1981, the 2025 strike took place amid active diplomatic monitoring by the IAEA, complicating its justification under contemporary legal standards.

Weakening of the UN Charter Framework

The United Nations Charter was established to restrict the unilateral use of force and encourage collective security through the Security Council. By bypassing the Council and acting without international approval, Israel’s actions—if unchallenged—may set a precedent of permissibility for preemptive wars. Legal experts warn this risks a gradual weakening of the Charter’s authority and an increase in state-on-state military action without consequence.

If states come to believe that anticipatory self-defence justifies striking before an actual attack occurs—without meeting the “imminence” test—future conflicts may be framed under similar justifications, eroding the foundational principle of non-aggression in international law.

Challenges to Accountability and Enforcement

While various states and legal bodies have condemned the operation, international enforcement remains limited. The International Criminal Court (ICC) does not have jurisdiction over Israel or Iran in this context, and the lack of a direct Security Council resolution limits the possibility of binding consequences. This impunity fuels criticisms that international law is inconsistently applied, particularly when it concerns nuclear powers or their allies.

Civil society organizations and legal scholars have called for the UN Human Rights Council and the International Law Commission to initiate inquiries into the operation’s legality and humanitarian impact. However, the political will to pursue such investigations remains uncertain.

Impact on the Non-Proliferation Regime

Operation Rising Lion may also undermine the legitimacy of the global nuclear governance system. Iran, as a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), was subject to IAEA oversight at the time of the attack. Critics argue that attacking a state engaged in monitored nuclear activities undercuts the incentive for other states to cooperate with international nuclear inspectors. If adherence to the NPT is met with violence rather than dialogue, the treaty's deterrent power may erode.

Conversely, the operation may prompt renewed calls to integrate Israel into the NPT framework, or at minimum, increase international scrutiny over undeclared nuclear arsenals. This could lead to a recalibration of Middle East disarmament initiatives and reenergize debates on establishing a nuclear-free zone in the region.

Diplomatic and Strategic Futures

Finally, Operation Rising Lion’s long-term effects depend on how the international community responds. Options range from formal censure and investigations to diplomatic mediation and efforts to restore multilateral non-proliferation negotiations. If the strike is left unaddressed by formal legal mechanisms, the precedent may embolden similar actions by other states facing strategic threats—real or perceived.

Operation Rising Lion stands at the intersection of evolving warfare and fragile international norms. It forces a reckoning with how law, politics, and security interact in a world where preemptive force is increasingly normalized. The global legal order now faces a critical test: whether it can uphold the principles of the UN Charter or cede ground to a system defined by power, discretion, and unilateralism.

Also Read

• Articles on the Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties

• Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties

• Geopolitics in the 21st Century

• The Role of International Law in Diplomacy

• United Nations: Structure and Challenges

Conclusion

Operation Rising Lion has emerged as a defining moment in the evolving relationship between state security, international law, and global stability. Launched by Israel in June 2025, the operation has raised serious legal and ethical questions regarding both the jus ad bellum—the legality of the resort to force—and the jus in bello—the conduct of hostilities during conflict. Israel’s justification under the banner of anticipatory self-defence, absent clear evidence of an imminent Iranian threat, falls outside the widely accepted limits set by the UN Charter and customary international law.

In terms of execution, the airstrikes appear to have violated core principles of international humanitarian law, including distinction, proportionality, and precaution. Civilian casualties and damage to protected infrastructure further complicate Israel’s legal position and have prompted widespread international condemnation.

The broader consequences of the operation cannot be overstated. It risks weakening the authority of the UN Charter, undermining the credibility of the non-proliferation regime, and setting a dangerous precedent that may embolden other states to act unilaterally in the name of security. Without clear accountability, international law may increasingly be perceived as optional rather than binding.

Operation Rising Lion thus represents not only a regional military escalation but also a pivotal test for the global legal order. Whether the international community responds with assertive legal and diplomatic action—or allows legal ambiguity and impunity to persist—will shape the future of state conduct, conflict resolution, and the credibility of international law itself.