In early 2026, the United States carried out two major military actions abroad. One involved coordinated airstrikes on Iran alongside Israel. The other was a military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture and removal of President Nicolás Maduro. Both actions were defended politically as necessary for security and stability. But a different question quickly followed: were they legal under international law?
This article explains the legal issues in simple terms. It looks at what the rules actually say, how the United States might justify its actions, and why some allies — including Britain — have asked Washington to clarify its legal basis.[1]
The Basic Rule: Countries Cannot Freely Use Force
After the Second World War, nations agreed on a key principle: countries should not use military force against each other except in very limited circumstances. This rule is written into the United Nations Charter, specifically Article 2(4). It prohibits the use of force against another country’s territory or political independence.
There are only two widely accepted exceptions:
- A country acts in self-defence after being attacked.
- The United Nations Security Council authorises military action.
If neither of those conditions is met, military force is generally considered illegal under international law.
The Iran Strikes: Was It Self-Defence?
The United States has suggested that the strikes on Iran were necessary to prevent threats linked to Iran’s military capabilities and regional activity. This kind of reasoning is often called “anticipatory self-defence” — acting before an attack happens.
However, traditional interpretations of international law set a high bar. To claim self-defence, a country usually needs to show that an armed attack has already happened, or that one is clearly about to happen and cannot be prevented by other means.
At the time of writing, no public evidence has shown that Iran had launched an immediate armed attack on the United States. That is why some legal experts argue the strikes may not meet the strict legal threshold for self-defence.[2]
There was also no public indication of United Nations Security Council approval. In fact, an emergency Security Council meeting was held after the strikes, with several countries expressing concern.[3]
The Venezuela Operation: A Different but Related Issue
The U.S. military operation in Venezuela raises slightly different legal questions. In that case, American forces entered Venezuelan territory and captured President Nicolás Maduro, transferring him to the United States for prosecution.[4]
The United States framed the action as targeting criminal conduct and restoring stability. But under international law, forcibly entering another country and removing its leader is generally viewed as a violation of sovereignty unless there is clear legal justification — such as consent from that government, a recognised invitation from a legitimate authority, or UN approval.
There is no public indication that Venezuela consented to the operation. Nor was there UN Security Council authorisation. That leaves self-defence or extraordinary justification — both difficult arguments in a leadership-capture scenario.
Legal scholars have previously debated similar issues in past U.S. operations, including targeted strikes and cross-border actions. The consistent tension lies between enforcing accountability and respecting sovereignty.[5]
Britain’s Response: Asking for the Legal Basis
The British government’s response to the Iran strikes was cautious. Britain’s Defence Secretary stated that it was for the United States to “set out the legal basis” for the action, rather than openly declaring it lawful or unlawful.[1]
This careful wording reflects a broader dilemma. Allies may share security concerns, but they also rely on international law as a protective framework. Publicly endorsing contested legal reasoning could weaken that framework in the long term.
Why Legality Matters
Some argue that national security must come first, and legal debates are secondary. Others argue the opposite: that the rules exist precisely to prevent powerful states from using force whenever they believe it is convenient.
If major powers broaden the definition of self-defence to include preventive or political objectives, the global rule against the use of force becomes weaker. Smaller states may feel more vulnerable. Rival powers may use the same reasoning in future conflicts.
In simple terms, once the legal line moves, it rarely moves back.
The Bigger Question
The Iran strikes and the Venezuela operation are not identical, but they raise a shared concern: whether powerful states are stretching legal interpretations to justify expanded freedom of action.
If military force is used without clear UN approval or clear evidence of immediate attack, then international law becomes more flexible — and more political. That flexibility may serve short-term security goals. But it also reshapes expectations worldwide.
The deeper issue is not whether the United States can act. It clearly can. The issue is whether it acts within a rules-based system that constrains everyone — or whether those rules are increasingly reinterpreted by those with the greatest power.
Conclusion
The legality of both the Iran strikes and the Venezuelan operation remains contested. There was no UN Security Council approval in either case. Claims of self-defence depend heavily on interpretation.
For now, the legal debate continues. But every time force is used in legally uncertain territory, the international system adjusts slightly. Over time, those small adjustments can redefine what is considered normal.
References
- Reuters — Britain says it is for the U.S. to set out the legal basis for Iran strikes.
- EJIL: Talk! — Legal analysis questioning the legality of the strikes under the UN Charter.
- AP News — UN Security Council emergency meeting following the Iran strikes.
- UK House of Commons Library — Briefing summarising the U.S. operation capturing Nicolás Maduro.
- Council on Foreign Relations — Background on Venezuela instability and U.S. involvement.
