The Legal Status of Iran's Attack on Israel in the Context of Retaliatory Actions, Countermeasures, and Self-Defense

Abstract

In response to Israel's attack on its consulate in Damascus in March 2024, Iran launched retaliatory attacks against Israel, sparking significant discourse within the realm of international law. Various interpretations have emerged, with some characterizing these actions as "retorsion," others as "countermeasures," and still others as "self-defense" as enshrined in the UN Charter. This research delves into the precise nature of Iran's attack on Israel through the lens of these concepts, examining the conditions and distinctions associated with each. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and drawing on documentary data, this study concludes that Iran's missile and drone attacks against Israel cannot be categorized as either retorsion or countermeasures. Rather, given the circumstances and characteristics of Iran's actions, they are best understood as an exercise of the right to self-defense. Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate in Damascus constituted an armed attack, fulfilling one of the prerequisites for invoking self-defense. Moreover, the other requirements of self-defense, such as proportionality, necessity, and notification to the Security Council, were also met by Iran's actions. Consequently, it can be argued that Iran's missile and drone attacks constituted a lawful exercise of the right to self-defense under the UN Charter and international law.