Amid escalating tensions between the United States and Iran in 2026, an old debate has returned to the center of international discussion: why do U.S. military interventions rarely result in legal punishment?
As in previous conflicts, international law experts are questioning the legality of recent actions, particularly in light of allegations of attacks on civilian infrastructure. The current situation has reignited comparisons with key moments in U.S. foreign policy, such as the Iraq War.
A history of contested interventions
The 2003 invasion of Iraq was justified by the U.S. government based on the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction, which were never found. The lack of evidence, combined with the absence of clear authorization from the international community, raised serious questions about the legality of the operation.
Another major milestone was the war in Afghanistan, launched after the September 11th attacks. Despite initial international support, the conflict was later marked by allegations of abuses and human rights violations. Together, these cases point to a recurring pattern: interventions justified on the grounds of security or counterterrorism, but frequently criticized by experts and international organizations.
Humanitarian violations and the limits of accountability
Throughout these operations, the United States has faced multiple accusations related to violations of international humanitarian law.
One of the most emblematic cases occurred at Abu Ghraib prison, where reports of torture and abuse of detainees emerged. Despite global outrage, punishments were largely limited to low-ranking soldiers.
Another example is the Guantánamo Bay detention center, widely criticized for holding detainees without formal trial and for practices considered unlawful by human rights organizations. In addition, drone operations in countries such as Pakistan and Syria have also raised concerns due to civilian casualties and a lack of transparency. Even in the face of these allegations, international accountability faces structural obstacles. The United Nations relies on cooperation between states, and more severe decisions must pass through the UN Security Council, where the United States holds veto power.
The current scenario: tensions with Iran
Recent tensions involving Iran reflect many of the same dynamics seen in previous interventions. There are reports of strikes on strategic targets, alongside growing concerns about their potential impact on civilian populations.
According to the Charter, the use of force is only considered lawful in cases of self-defense or with authorization from the United Nations Security Council. Legal scholars and human rights organizations have repeatedly questioned actions that fall outside these conditions.
At the domestic level, debates also persist within the Estados Unidos. Under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, the president’s authority to initiate military action without congressional approval is limited, raising further questions about the legality of certain decisions.
Is punishment possible?
In practice, holding the United States accountable for military interventions remains unlikely. This is because the international system relies on political mechanisms, not just legal ones. The country’s global influence, combined with its veto power in decision-making bodies such as the UN Security Council, makes sanctions or formal legal action difficult to enforce.
This pattern has been observed before. During the Iraq War, the intervention took place without explicit Security Council authorization and was widely criticized by countries such as France and Germany, which questioned its legality. Still, the United States received support from allies like the United Kingdom and formed a military coalition, reducing diplomatic isolation and preventing any formal accountability.
In the current situation involving Iran, a similar dynamic is unfolding. While experts and parts of the international community have raised concerns about potential violations of international law, particularly regarding strikes on civilian infrastructure, U.S. allies have largely adopted cautious or indirectly supportive positions. Meanwhile, countries such as Russia and China have condemned the actions and called for diplomatic solutions, although these criticisms rarely translate into concrete measures capable of enforcing accountability.
When consequences do occur, they tend to be political rather than legal, including reputational damage, diplomatic criticism, and pressure from civil society organizations. In the case of Iraq, for instance, the primary outcome was a loss of international legitimacy and domestic political repercussions, rather than sanctions or international prosecutions.
Against this backdrop, the situation in Iran raises a broader question in international relations: to what extent is the global system capable of holding powerful states accountable, especially those that play a central role in shaping the very rules they are expected to follow?
______________________________
The article above was edited by Ana Rita Rodrigues Fernandes.
Liked this type of content? Check Her Campus Cásper Líbero home page for more!