History As It Happens – Bonus Ep! Iran and the Laws of War

Host: Martin Di Caro
Guest: Adil Haque, Professor, Rutgers Law School
Date: March 4, 2026

Episode Overview

This bonus episode analyzes the 2026 U.S. and Israeli war against Iran through the lens of international law and the laws of armed conflict. Host Martin Di Caro interviews Adil Haque, a leading scholar on the ethics and legalities of war, to break down the justification (or lack thereof) for the attack, Congress’s abdication of war powers, and what history and law can teach us about the nature—and legality—of modern warfare.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Context: War Erupts & Shifting Rationales (00:00–01:08)

• The U.S. and Israel have launched an unprovoked attack on Iran, with “shifting rationales for why they launched an unprovoked attack and what they aim to achieve, expanding the possibility of an open-ended war where any victory is hard to define.” (A, 00:03)
• Administration officials cite Iran’s refusal to halt its nuclear and missile programs, and claim that preemptive action was needed to protect U.S. and Israeli forces.

2. Is the War Legal? – International Law & UN Charter (02:02–03:00)

• Adil Haque: “No. So under international law it is a violation of the United Nations Charter to use armed force against another state with two exceptions. One is when the use of force is authorized by the UN Security Council and the other is in self-defense if an armed attack occurs…Neither of those criteria are met here.” (E, 02:12)
  • The Security Council did not authorize force.
  • Iran had not attacked nor was it imminently about to attack the U.S. or Israel.
  • Negotiations were ongoing with Iran up to the hour before the bombings.

3. The ‘Imminent Attack’ Pretext (03:00-03:46)

• Senator Tom Cotton and others claim Iran has been an “imminent” threat for 47 years.
  • Tom Cotton: “Iran has posed an imminent risk to the United States for 47 years as they’ve maimed and killed thousands of Americans…The President was right to act when he did.” (F, 03:05)
• Adil Haque: “It’s sort of a self-refuting claim, of course. So an imminent armed attack is one that is planned…about to happen and the window of opportunity to prevent it is about to close. Again, neither of those criteria are met here.” (E, 03:17)
  • Iran was not planning to attack; diplomacy was ongoing.

4. International Consensus & Precedent for Legal Wars (03:46–05:00)

• Martin Di Caro cites Mark Urban (Sunday Times, Newsnight), who notes that only three wars have met the UN’s “international legal gold standard”—Korea 1950, Kuwait 1991, Libya 2011—and suggests the bar is extremely high.
• Adil Haque: “Well, I think that that is a good thing because it reflects…there have been very few wars where there was international consensus that they ought to be fought…Ukraine’s defensive war against Russia that were not authorized by the Security Council but [was] clearly legal as a clear exercise of the right of self defense.” (E, 04:37)

5. Do Laws of War Matter?

• Martin Di Caro points out, “laws of war don’t magically prevent unnecessary illegal conflicts. As President Trump himself said recently, he has no use for international law.” (A, 01:08)
• Congress’s responsibility for declaring war, enshrined in the Constitution, has been abdicated ("Congress has surrendered its responsibilities."). (A, 01:08)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Adil Haque on Legal Justification:
  “Under international law it is a violation of the United Nations Charter to use armed force against another state with two exceptions…Neither of those criteria are met here.” (02:12)
• Senator Tom Cotton’s “Imminent Threat”:
  “Iran has posed an imminent risk to the United States for 47 years…” (03:05)
• Haque Rebuttal:
  “It’s sort of a self-refuting claim, of course…They were still negotiating. They were not planning to attack.” (03:17)
• On Rarity of Legal Wars:
  “I think that that is a good thing because it reflects the fact that there have been very few wars where there was international consensus that they ought to be fought.” (04:37)

Important Timestamps

• 00:00–00:55: Background, shifting rationales for war
• 02:02–03:00: Legal analysis of initiatory hostilities
• 03:05–03:46: The ‘imminent threat’ justification debunked
• 03:46–04:37: Historical precedents for legal wars; Mark Urban’s commentary
• 04:37–05:00: Haque on the importance of international consensus

Tone & Language

The discussion maintains a sober, analytical tone. Adil Haque’s language is careful and precise, emphasizing legal definitions and principles over partisan rhetoric, while Martin Di Caro probes the shifting rationales and the historical record.

Summary Takeaway

The experts argue that the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran of 2026 lacks any legitimate basis in international law, with neither Security Council authorization nor a credible basis in self-defense. The longstanding claims of an “imminent threat” are dismissed as unfounded, and the rarity of truly legal wars is framed as a feature—not a bug—of the international system. Ultimately, the episode underscores how the laws of war may be clear, but political actors can and do circumvent them, leaving both legality and morality in question when power overrides principle.