At dawn on Friday, June 13, 2025, Israeli jets tore into Iran’s nuclear and military complexes, targeting Natanz, Fordow, radars, and key commanders while former U.S. President Donald Trump took to Truth Social, warning of “even more brutal” planned attacks unless Iran capitulates. This high-stakes display of power and this statement urge us to question not just the military strike but the ethics of digital diplomacy.
The Israeli Defense Forces framed the operation as “preemptive” and “precise,” carried out against “an imminent and existential threat”. Meanwhile, Iran rightfully condemned it as a “declaration of war,” and mobilized over 100 drones in retaliation. But from a legal standpoint, the core question remains: under what authority can one state strike another’s sovereign territory? The argument of anticipatory self-defense, stemming from Article 51 of the UN Charter, is only valid under conditions of Actual Attack, not under perceived attack. Yet, as academic analysis suggests, no factual evidence has been presented showing Iran was on the brink of launching an attack. Without such proof, this action may constitute an illegal use of force under Article 2 (4) of the Charter. However, under international law, an attack on Iran is only legal if authorized by the UN Security Council under Article 42 of the UN Charter an unlikely due to deep divisions among its members.
Israel’s strategy draws from precedents like the 1967 Six-Day War and earlier strikes on Osirak (1981) and Syrian nuclear sites (2007), operations often justified under the Begin Doctrine (a preventive strike is justified to stop adversaries from acquiring nuclear capabilities). But international law today explicitly rejects “preemptive” or preventive war, allowing force only when facing an actual or imminent armed attack. Worse, Israel’s spokesperson cited a general threat message, “those who threaten Israel… will pay a heavy price” blurring defensive rationale with threatening statements. The military said it had carried out a large-scale strike against Iran’s air defenses, destroying “dozens of radars and surface-to-air missile launchers”. Such an assertion risks transforming self-defense into reprisal, a prohibited act under international humanitarian law.
It’s telling that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and maintains strict nuclear ambiguity, while fiercely policing Iran’s nuclear aspirations . Yet, Iran, as an NPT signatory, retains a legal right to enrichment for peaceful purposes. Striking without demonstrable evidence of immediate attack, and UN Security Council approval while Iran abides by treaty terms, casts Israel’s operation as strategically inconsistent and legally dubious. Russia, among others, called the strikes “unprovoked and illegal” .
Netanyahu cast the military campaign as a “decisive moment,” vowing it would last “as long as necessary”. Yet critics suggest attacks are designed less as strategic neutralizers and more as political theatre aggression to consolidate domestic support or undercut nuclear diplomacy just before talks in Oman. Every strike inflicts civilian tolls 78+ killed, hundreds injured, including children—and cripples regional stability . Meanwhile, global condemnation, particularly from Egypt, which has a longstanding peace treaty with Israel, called the latest Israeli strikes a violation of international law and “a direct threat to regional and international peace and security.” Turkey accused Israel of resorting to military force instead of diplomacy to resolve tensions and the UN signals that diplomacy is faltering .
Just before 6 a.m. in Washington, Trump posted:
“I gave Iran chance after chance…”
The audacity of Trump’s threat tweets,” I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal,” he said. “There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left…” reflects an alarming trend in global communication norms.
While Trump’s language suggests foreknowledge of the attack or even indirect approval, current U.S. security officials have distanced themselves from the incident. Notably, Statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran, and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.” The disparity between official U.S. denials of involvement and Trump’s suggestive language undermines the credibility of U.S foreign policy. It raises urgent questions about the implications of digital diplomacy, the responsibility of leaders in conflict situations, and the risks of mixed signals during high-stakes geopolitical crises. Who truly represents American interests—the elected government or an unofficial social media platform?
Israel’s preemptive strikes without a clear legal framing risk setting a dangerous precedent. If unchecked, they may encourage more states or non-state actors to bypass UN oversight and international law. Meanwhile, the digital statements of leaders like Trump amplify tensions, confuse global audiences, and potentially trigger wider conflict all without accountability. In a volatile Middle East, diplomacy and clarity are not luxuries they are essential. Bombs and tweets must not become acceptable tools of statecraft. With nuclear diplomacy hanging by a thread, the world cannot afford the legal erosion or rhetorical chaos on display.
[Photo by Avash Media, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
Sarina Tareen is a Research Intern at the Balochistan Think Tank Network (BTTN) and a graduate in International Relations from BUITEMS. The views and opinions expressed in the article are those of the author.
