On February 28, the United States and Israel commenced a large-scale military attack on Iran, sparking debates about its legality under international law. Professor Hiroyuki Banzai from Waseda University highlighted that this attack constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense or with the authorization of the Security Council. Notably, there were no resolutions from the Security Council legitimizing the attack, and neither the U.S. nor Israel claimed self-defense as a justification.

The international community's response to the attack is critical as it could set precedents regarding military interventions. The absence of a Security Council resolution raises questions about the effectiveness and authority of international law, particularly concerning the principle of non-use of force. As the situation unfolds, there are mounting concerns among scholars and legal experts that the principle of non-use of force could become increasingly disregarded, leading to further unilateral military actions by states under various pretexts.

In addition to the legal ramifications, the attack is likely to escalate tensions in the region and potentially provoke retaliatory actions from Iran. Reports indicate significant casualties and heightened military readiness in the area, with implications for global security and the balance of power in the Middle East. The developments call for a reevaluation of diplomatic strategies and international cooperation to mitigate further conflicts.