NEW YORK – The military storm that erupted on February 28, 2026, over Tehran has now transitioned into the glass halls of the United Nations Security Council. In a high-stakes strategic move, the United States and Israel submitted formal letters on March 10, attempting to erect an impenetrable legal wall around their operations. The "key" to this effort is none other than Article 51 of the UN Charter, which enshrines the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense.
Newsroom
The American letter, bearing the signature of the Permanent Representative and close aide to President Trump, Ambassador Michael Waltz, is not merely a briefing but a stern indictment. Washington maintains that the military action was the necessary result of an "ongoing threat" emanating from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to the text, the US acted to protect three central pillars: the American people, its armed forces in the region, and the free flow of navigation through the Straits of Hormuz. The reference to the Straits of Hormuz is not accidental; as the "artery" of global energy, invoking its protection frames the strike as a safeguard for global economic stability.
Ambassador Michael Waltz photo by Wikipedia
Waltz provides a historical narrative, linking the current regime to the 1979 hostage crisis, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and the support of the atrocities committed on October 7. The message is clear: Iran is not an occasional adversary but a "habitual" destabilizer that rejects peaceful coexistence.
For its part, Israel, through Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, presented its own perspective on Operation "Roaring Lion." The Israeli argument focuses on "existential threat." Tel Aviv contends that Tehran does not merely use hate speech but implements an operational plan for the destruction of the Jewish state through its network of proxies.
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar photo by by Wikipedia
The most critical point of the Israeli letter concerns the timing. Israel argues that had it not acted on February 28, Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities would have reached an "irreversible" stage, where no defensive intervention would be effective. This introduces the concept of "preemptive self-defense" into the international debate—a concept that, while legally controversial, is presented as the only path to survival.
Interestingly, the letter explicitly clarifies that the operation was not directed against the Iranian people. Israel attempts to appear as a "liberator," arguing that weakening the despotic regime will pave the way for the freedom of Iranian citizens themselves.
Article 51 is the sole exception to the general prohibition on the use of force set out in the UN Charter. To be accepted, it must be proven that an armed attack occurred or that an imminent threat of such an attack existed. By invoking this article, the US and Israel are attempting to "bind" the Security Council, making it difficult for countries like Russia or China to issue condemnatory resolutions, as they often use similar legal arguments for their own spheres of influence.
The submission of these letters marks the end of the period of "strategic ambiguity." The conflict is now open and legally framed. The US and Israel warn that they reserve the right for further action if Iran does not comply with UN resolutions (such as 2231/2015) regarding the restriction of its weapons programs.
The international community watches with bated breath. If the Security Council tacitly accepts these arguments, we will see a radical shift in how "lawful defense" is defined in the 21st century. If not, the diplomatic isolation of the involved parties could lead to an even greater conflagration.
What is certain is that March 10, 2026, will be recorded as the day the geopolitics of power met the geopolitics of law, in an attempt to redefine the map of the Middle East.
