Trump says he bombed Iran

[quintessentone]

Keir Starmer on why this war is illegal:

"Keir Starmer believes the U.S.-led military action against Iran is illegal because it lacks a lawful basis under international law, particularly the United Nations Charter.  He has consistently emphasized that any UK military involvement must have a clear legal foundation and a viable, thought-through plan—lessons learned from the Iraq War. In a statement to Parliament, Starmer said, “We have seen before what happens when an American president launches an illegal war with no idea how or when it is going to end, and we fear for what comes next.” He specifically criticized the initial strikes as “unilateral, and unlawful”, arguing that the U.S. has not provided a credible legal justification for attacking Iran, especially given the absence of an imminent threat. 
Starmer also stressed that the UK does not support “regime change from the skies”, and that the decision to allow U.S. use of British bases was strictly for defensive purposes—to protect British citizens, allies, and military assets in the region after Iran launched retaliatory drone and missile attacks on Gulf states. While he acknowledged Iran’s actions also violated international law, he maintained that the UK’s role must remain limited to collective self-defense and lawful, proportionate action. His position reflects a commitment to international legal norms, even as he faces pressure from both allies and critics."

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/...l-quagmire

[FlyersFan]

Keir Starmer on why this war is illegal:

​​​​​​​

[Astyanax]

Self defense.

By American law, war has not been declared so Congress doesn't have to be notified or asked for permission.   

Bunkum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defen...tional_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

[putnam6]

If Iran wasn't a big threat in 2011 then I guess that means this isn't really a "47 year old war"?

Like Trump and his followers have been pushing?

Unless Iran called a time-out in 2011 then then started the war back up in 2026?

Because evidently, they weren't much of a threat during Trump's 1st term, either?

And you roasted me when I suggested the Strait could be closed for 3 weeks

You said you'd quit posting

Aww, you remember my posts... pretty sure I meant 2 weeks from the day of my post but...

I've suggested all along that you take this way more seriously than I do.

Regardless, it's unlikely I'll quit posting, try the ignore button, it works for me




None of this feels as desperate as it's being presented... sure tensions ebb and flow thats how the real world works, 47 years ago they held 200 plus American hostages, it wasn't a war, but tensions were high AF for the whole time

Militarily, though, it compares well against Uncle Sammy's other Middle Eastern adventures so far.

Like with Trump or any President, you take the good with the bad.

[SteamyAmerican]

Well, Starmer, who is a lawyer who studied International Law, says he can't find any legality in it and with his credentials, I'd believe him over anyone here on this forum who offers nothing more than opinion.

Normally I’d agree here.

But as Starmer is royally screwing his constituents and native Brits, he can probably STFU here.

Just saying, when you allow rapists to walk, and jail those speaking their minds about it, he can get stuffed with his opinions on the “legality” of things.

[FlyersFan]

Bunkum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defen...tional_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

Nope.  Already been explained.   Self defense.   Completely legal.   
And Congress doesn't have to be notified of military action  until day 60
if war is not declared.   ANd it hasn't been declared.
Nothing illegal about this action.

[SomeStupidName]

So close to a victory! Cuban's are pushing out the commies in their land, Crushing Iran is applying immense pressure on the largest bastion of communist hope China, have you seen the lines for gas in China earlier this year the workers burned down a bunch a factories when we crippled their economy with tariffs and and only traded with their competitors, we should apply that pressure again right now.

[putnam6]

Man this thread....

[SteamyAmerican]

Right?

”From the skies….”

So when Blair joined up with us Yanks to decimate Iraq and take over, it was fine because there were boots on the ground? Is that implication. Because Blair ain’t no saint, even if he’s been rewarded with a position to “retool” Gaza….

[Oldcarpy2]

Self defense.
And actually the military action being taken doesn't need legal justification.

But if you want one ... Self defense.  You don't have to wait to be shot at in order to shoot first.   Just the threat from Iran is enough to justify a self defense claim.   And Iran has been very bold with it's threats to 'wipe Israel off the map' and 'destroy America'.   Coupled with their weapons program and their obvious nuclear ambitions (they even stated they have enough nuclear material for 11 bombs), as well as them being caught in lie after lie during bad faith negotiations ... self defense is an obvious motive for this action.

By American law, war has not been declared so Congress doesn't have to be notified or asked for permission.   This is a military operation which means Congress has to be notified within 60 days.   It's only day 16.   So nothing illegal by American law.  And t his type of action has been done by past presidents ... Clinton and Obama for example.

And as far as the UN goes, the UN is not a legislative body. It does not exercise legal jurisdiction over anyone.

SOME strikes by America, Israel and Iran may be against the Geneva Convention.   If it can be determined that they were done on purpose against civilian infrastructure that was not known to be being used for military purposes.   But that will have to be determined when the bombs stop and investigations begin.

They have been threatening the US for decades.

No evidence for any nuclear threat has been provided.  "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

We've been there before.

I thought they were "obliterated"?

International law is distinct from US law.

What would be the legal justification for the UK to wade in?