March 1, 2026, 6:58 pm
Author – Austin Campbell
President Donald Trump’s order to launch a coordinated U.S.-Israeli strike against Iran ran afoul of international and domestic law, according to military and legal experts including the former legal chief at U.S. Central Command, which carried out the attacks.
“Not only does this violate international law in numerous respects, it clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and the War Powers Resolution,” said retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, who previously served as chief of international law at U.S. Central Command.
The United Nations Charter generally restricts the use of force to cases of self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council. The Constitution separately gives Congress the authority to authorize offensive war.
The War Powers Resolution also requires presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing U.S. forces into hostilities and limits how long those forces can operate without congressional approval. Secretary of State Marco Rubio briefed members of Congress’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight” in calls Friday night ahead of the strikes, according to administration officials and news reports.
“It absolutely triggers the 48-hour notice requirement.”
Legal experts say advance briefings to the Gang of Eight do not necessarily satisfy the War Powers Resolution, which contemplates a formal written report to Congress as an institution, not just a small group of leaders.
“This is an introduction of U.S. forces into hostilities,” said VanLandingham, who now teaches national security law at Southwestern Law School. “It absolutely triggers the 48-hour notice requirement,” she said.
The fact American servicemembers died in the operation raises further legal concerns, she said, as Congress is intended to decide when American lives are placed at risk in offensive wars.
Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., called the operation “dangerous” and “illegal,” saying Trump launched the attack “without authorization from Congress.”
“Speaker Johnson must immediately reconvene the House so we can pass a War Powers Resolution to rein in this unauthorized use of our military and taxpayer dollars,” Balint said.
Democratic leaders had already been moving toward a vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution in the days before the strikes, though the measure was widely expected to fail amid scattered Democratic opposition and near-unified Republican resistance.
From a legal perspective, VanLandingham said the attacks, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, present fewer ambiguities than prior U.S. strikes on Iran, including Operation Midnight Hammer on June 22, 2025, which the U.S. said targeted Iranian nuclear facilities.
Over time, administrations of both parties have steadily expanded unilateral war powers, VanLandingham said, effectively redefining what counts as war in constitutional terms and expanding the circumstances in which presidents can use force without congressional approval. She pointed to air campaigns under Presidents Barack Obama in Libya and Donald Trump in Syria as examples of operations the executive branch treated as falling short of war requiring congressional authorization.
Questions of International Law
The death toll for Operation Epic Fury is mounting, both among civilians and combatants. A strike on a girls’ primary school resulted in nearly 100 reported civilian casualties, and U.S. Central Command said three U.S. service members were killed in action and five seriously wounded. Several others servicemembers sustained minor injuries, the command said, as combat operations continued across the region.
Video circulating on social media appeared to show large explosions near U.S. military installations in Bahrain, including the headquarters of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, though the extent of any damage was not immediately clear. The U.S. Navy did not respond to questions from The Intercept about whether any service members were killed or injured in Iran’s retaliatory strikes.
U.S. casualties heighten the constitutional stakes, VanLandingham said, because the decision to place American troops in harm’s way has traditionally rested with Congress, which she described as the government’s closest representation of the American public.
“To say there’s no risk to U.S. troops… I wouldn’t call it naive. I’d call it a pure lie,” said Wes Bryant, a former Air Force special operations member who previously served as chief of civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon’s Civilian Protection Center of Excellence.
Bryant said the scope of the strikes suggested major combat operations that could quickly tip toward large-scale conflict in a densely populated country, with predictable risks to both U.S. troops and civilians.
“If these reports are accurate, this should be very concerning to U.S. forces.”
Bryant said the early casualty figures may not reflect the full risk if hostilities continue. “I’m surprised it’s only been three deaths,” he said. “It will be more if this continues and we lose the initial shock value.”
U.S. Central Command said U.S. forces successfully defended against hundreds of Iranian missile and drone attacks targeting American installations and reported minimal damage that did not disrupt base operations.
Early reports of successful Iranian strikes, if confirmed, could signal vulnerabilities in U.S. regional defenses, said analysts with the Eisenhower Media Network.
“If these reports are accurate, this should be very concerning to U.S. forces,” said Matt Hoh, a former Marine Corps captain and State Department official who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Iranian missiles and drones were able to breach U.S. defenses very early in the conflict.”
Hoh said early breaches of U.S. defenses, if confirmed, could reflect gaps in regional air defenses, evolving Iranian missile capabilities, or lessons Tehran has drawn from observing U.S. operations.
The Navy’s Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain serves as the centerpiece of U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf, and any sustained threat to installations in the region could complicate American force posture and maritime security operations.
Also within range of Iran’s missile arsenal is Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, one of the largest U.S.-operated airfields outside the United States and home to thousands of American personnel.
Iran had repeatedly warned it would target U.S. bases if attacked, said Karen U. Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and former Pentagon officer. The retaliation reflects “the behavior of a near-peer adversary” and marks a sharp contrast with the kinds of conflicts the United States has fought over the past three decades.
Iran is conventionally weaker than the United States but remains regionally dangerous through its large missile and drone arsenal and its ability to apply asymmetric pressure on U.S. forces. Recent reporting has also raised concerns about strain on U.S. naval interceptor stockpiles after heavy use in Middle East operations.
The risks extend beyond military escalation. Bryant said the opening strikes raise significant concerns about civilian harm and the risk of a broader regional conflict, particularly given the coordinated nature of the U.S.-Israel campaign.
“I really worry about the civilian harm that’s going to result if this becomes a prolonged conflict,” Bryant said. “Whatever happens … we own that.”
Some national security analysts sharply questioned the administration’s humanitarian rationale for the strikes, noting that the threshold for unilateral presidential force is typically tied to imminent threats to the United States. Critics also argue that the administration’s broader domestic record, including policies affecting women’s bodily autonomy, aggressive immigration enforcement, and the detention of some government protesters, undercuts its stated moral justification for military action against Iran.
Bryant warned the risks could escalate quickly if the conflict expands beyond the opening air campaign, particularly given Iran’s military capabilities and regional proxy network.
“If we thought the insurgency was bad in Iraq or even Syria, wait until we enter Iran,” Bryant said.
U.S. officials have not announced any plans for ground operations in Iran, and analysts say the administration’s next steps remain uncertain.
Domestic Political Implications
Shortly after the strikes, Trump and his allies framed the operation through a domestic political lens, amplifying without evidence unsubstantiated claims that Iran interfered in the 2020 election.
For VanLandingham, the rhetoric stood out not just for its substance but also its timing ahead of mid-term elections.
“What’s chilling is that he’s tying this attack against another country to domestic politics as a way to further consolidate power over his base and potentially link the use of force to domestic use of force this fall,” she said.
Viewed in that light, she said, the seemingly ridiculous claim appears more strategic.
“It’s mind-boggling. But when you look at it, it makes rational sense for him to say, ‘I’m doing this because I’m taking out everyone who stood in my way in 2020,’” VanLandingham said. “He is linking it to his own domestic grievances because he is laying the groundwork, I strongly believe, to use the U.S. military improperly.”
Bryant, who previously led civilian harm assessments at the Pentagon, said the administration’s framing echoes familiar patterns in which when governments blur external threats with internal political messaging. He pointed to recent violence against protestors and legal observers in Minnesota as a parallel, albeit on a smaller scale, to Iran’s brutal crackdowns on dissent.
“Everything that Trump is accusing the Iranian regime of doing, he has done,” Bryant said.
Other national security analysts warned the messaging could have concrete domestic consequences if wartime authorities are invoked inside the United States. Trump has previously threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act in response to protests over ICE operations in Minneapolis.
“This is the kind of messaging that will allow the administration to cite national security if they attempt to nationalize elections, have federal law enforcement, like ICE, patrol polling places, and enact executive orders or push legislation to strip Americans of voting rights and other civil liberties,” Hoh said.
Federal law enforcement has already signaled an elevated posture. FBI Director Kash Patel wrote on X that counterterrorism teams are operating at heightened readiness.
“Our Joint Terrorism Task Forces throughout the country are working 24/7 to address and disrupt any potential threats to the homeland,” Patel wrote.
The post Trump’s Iran Attack Was Illegal, Former U.S. Military Officials Allege appeared first on The Intercept.
Full Article
Author: Austin Campbell
