Mark Klamberg, a professor of international law, asserts that the recent attacks by the US and Israel on Iran violate international law. He highlights that according to established principles of international law, military force can only be justified in cases of self-defense against imminent threats. Klamberg explains that the concept of 'preemptive self-defense', which Israel has used to justify its recent attacks, is not widely accepted when it refers to ambiguous and less immediate threats.

Klamberg draws parallels to the rationale used by former US President George W. Bush during the Iraq War, where preemptive action was taken under the guise of an imminent threat, a justification that has faced significant criticism and lacks considerable legal backing. This simplistic interpretation of self-defense undermines the principles that govern lawful military action and opens the door to excessive and unwarranted force.

The implications of Klamberg's statements are profound, indicating that these recent military actions could bring significant legal challenges and diplomatic repercussions for the involved states. With international law at stake, the situation highlights the delicate balance of power and the need for adherence to established legal frameworks to avoid further escalation and conflict in the region.