Is the Attack on Iran and Regime Change by Israel and the U.S. contrary to International Law?

By Dr. Hubertus and Yvonne Hoffmann*

I.

The attack by Israel and the US on Iran is in accordance with international law and like the obligation to help under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty.

In this brief paper, we will limit ourselves to violations of the Preamble and Article 1 of the UN Charter.

UN Charter

Preamble

We The People of the United Nations determined

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, …

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

And for these ends

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

… have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Chapter I Purposes and Principles

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

Iran has violated the UN Preamble and Chapter 1 many times repeatedly and for many years since 1979:

Externally:

1. “Respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law.”

Violated through the enrichment of 400 kg of uranium to 60 percent of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), as determined by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in June 2025. (for civilian use 5 percent are enough).

2. “Armed force shall not be used.”

3. “To maintain international peace and security.”

4. “Prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means.”

Through decades of uninterrupted efforts of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the government of Iran

in

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen or Gaza,

by the supply of many weapons and missiles

for use by Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, and other forces

against Israel and American troops and their allies in this region.

As well pre 2025 Iran fired 200 missiles directly from Iran, October 1^st, 2024.

Iran provided and supported proxies to fire missiles on Israel: 17,200 by Hisbollah, 10,000 by Hamas.

This makes Iran the perpetrator behind the perpetrator as an ally and direct aggressor against Israel, the US armed forces, and their local allies.

These attacks continued and were never stopped for years.

The leaders of Iran have repeatedly acknowledged this.

In addition, their will to destroy Israel has been emphasized as state doctrine.

The permanent use of weapons by Iran’s allies, plus their willingness to use and destroy, plus the violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, constitute a continuing attack on Israel and on US forces under international law.

Israel and the U.S. can, of course, exercise their right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

“Nothing in this present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.”

“Nothing” means “nothing” and “collective” means “collective.

This also applies to Israel’s alliance with the US.

It can be compared with the NATO mutual defense pact under Article 5.

“An armed attack against one or more shall be considered an attack against all.”

If for example only Estonia, as a NATO member, is attacked by Russia far away, the US, the UK, Germany, and other states, that have not themselves been directly attacked, will attack the aggressor in collective defense.

Just as the US came to Israel’s aid.

This is in accordance with NATO law and international law. A partial negation of this right to collective self-defense would paralyze NATO and is not in line with the transatlantic practice and understanding of international law since its founding April 4, 1949.

II.

Regime Change is in accordance with both the UN Charter and international law based on the Right to Resistance and the rules of Islam.

1. The dictators in Iran are clearly violating the obligations of the UN Charter internally:
   
   
   1. Obviously, the “fundamental rights of the human person, to dignity and the equal value of the human person, to the equality of men and women.”
   2. “Promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”
   3. “To practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours.”
   4. “Promotion of …social advancement of all peoples.”
   5. “Principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”
   6. “…humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

This gives all 90 million Iranians an international customary Right to Resist and to Enforce the UN Charter.

2. As an Islamic republic, the teachings of Islam and the instructions (Hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad are considered directly binding Islamic and Jihad law.

What would The Prophet do in Iran now? Kick the Mullahs out. As unislamic tyrants. The Prophet, due to his unfortunate experience in Mecca, objected vehemently any tyrant. Here his Hadiths as Islamic law:

‘A man once asked the Prophet if bigotry was to love one’s tribe. ‘No,’ replied the Prophet, ‘Bigotry is to help your tribe to tyrannize others.’” (Hadith of Ibn Majah on the Authority of Ubadah Ibn Kathir Ash-Shami).

“He who preaches bigotry is not one of us.” (Hadith of Abu Dawud on the Authority of Jubayr Ibn Mut’im.).

Muhammad told. “One who walks with a tyrant, in the full knowledge that he is a tyrant, in order to strengthen him, is such as has already left the fold of Islam.” (Hadith of Al-Bayhaqi on the Authority of Aus Ibn Shurahabil).

He demanded: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Help your brother whether he is an oppressor or an oppressed.’ A man said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I will help him if he is oppressed, but if he is an oppressor, how shall I help him?’ The Prophet said, ‘By preventing him from oppressing (others), for that is how to help him.’” (Narrated Anas, Bukhari Volume 9, Book 85, Number 84).

“A man who acquired a stretch of land by tyranny will be made to wear a yoke made of seven earths around his neck on the Day of Judgment,” he warned. (Hadith of Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the Authority of Sa’id Ibn Zayd id Ibn Zayd, in: Khan, Words of the Prophet Muhammad, 34.)

“On the Day of Judgment, the tyrant’s tyranny will descend upon him in the form of darkness. “(Narrated Ibn Umar, Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 627, cited also in: Khan, Words of the Prophet Muhammad, 80.).

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection.’” (Narrated Abdullah bin Umar; Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 622.)

“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Surely! Every one of you is a guardian and is responsible for his charges: The Imam (ruler) of the people is a guardian and is responsible for his subjects; a man is the guardian of his family (household) and is responsible for his subjects; a woman is the guardian of her husband’s home and of his children and is responsible for

them; and the slave of a man is a guardian of his master’s property and is responsible for it. Surely, every one of you is a guardian and responsible for his charges.’” (Narrated Abdullah bin Umar, Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 252.).

“I heard the Prophet saying, ‘Any man whom Allah has given the authority of ruling some people and he does not look after them in an honest manner, will never feel even the smell of Paradise.’” (Narrated Ma’qil, Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 264.).

Regime change from the tyrant-Mullahs to a new fair government – like in the United Arab Emirates – with salam, din, and hilm is not only permitted according to the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad but is even a duty for every faithful Muslim. Those who support regime change support The Prophet and the true faith of Allah.

Can other states from Europe, the U.S. or Israel help Iranians to help themselves and change the regime? Since their self-help against the Mullahs is permitted by the right to resistance and by Islamic law, assistance from the outside is also permitted. Regime change therefore does not contradict international law, but rather enforces it against tyrants.