Can Moral Storytelling Trump Legal Reason? The Iran War and the Dangerous Shift in How States Justify Conflict
As the United States and Israel Attack Iran Without UN Authorization, the Language of “Just War” Threatens to Replace the Rule of Law
Since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran, most people are speaking with one voice on the legality of the attacks. Legal experts have said the attacks violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against states. The US and Israel have not produced any evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat to either of them. Neither has brought the matter to the UN Security Council. As such, this was a clear breach of international law.
But even though most scholars agree the strikes were unlawful, the public and political debate has shifted somewhere else entirely. Instead of wrestling with the legal questions, many politicians, commentators, and everyday observers are counterbalancing the illegality with arguments about legitimacy.
This shift is not accidental. It reflects a deeper transformation in how states justify the use of force—a turn away from the objective standards of international law and toward the subjective terrain of moral storytelling. And it is a turn that carries profound dangers for the international order.
The Language of Legitimacy
Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump have cast the war as a “necessary” fight between good and evil. Netanyahu said: “I know the cost of war. But I know sometimes that war is necessary to protect us from the people who will destroy us. […] We have to understand that we’re fighting here the bad guys. We’re the good guys. These people massacred their own people.”
Canada and Australia, two of the US’s closest allies, have both used strikingly similar language in their statements about the war, saying they supported the US “acting to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” This idea of legitimacy—that is, what is “right,” “necessary,” or “just”—is now being thrown around in almost every conversation about the war.
These arguments echo centuries-old thinking about “just” wars. Christian philosophers such as St Augustine (4th–5th century) and St Thomas Aquinas (13th century) were proponents of what is known as the “just war theory.” Basically, this means you may violate the moral rule against violence if the cause is “just.”
But what happens when every state claims its cause is just? What happens when the language of morality replaces the language of law? These are the questions raised by the current conflict.
Two Arguments for Ignoring International Law
In modern debates, arguments about the legitimacy of wars tend to fall into two categories, both of which are now being deployed in support of the Iran attacks.
The first claims that attacks like those launched by the US and Israel are morally just and therefore ought to be permitted, regardless of what international law says. This line of reasoning suggests something like: “Do we really want Iran developing nuclear weapons or long-range missiles?” The implication is that if an action feels righteous, legality should not be a hindrance.
The statements by Netanyahu and Trump frame the use of force as morally necessary. They present the conflict as a struggle between good and evil, between civilisation and barbarism, between those who would protect the innocent and those who would massacre them. In such a framing, legal niceties appear irrelevant, even obstructive.
The second argument dismisses international law altogether as ineffective or irrelevant. Proponents point to past violations, to double standards, to the failure of the UN system to prevent atrocities. They ask: “Where was international law when Iran committed atrocities?” The implication is that if the law cannot prevent bad behaviour, it should not constrain good behaviour.
Both arguments have surface appeal. Both tap into genuine frustrations with the limits of international law. But both are deeply flawed.
The Danger of Moral Exceptionalism
The problem with allowing states to act on their own sense of morality is that every state can consider itself the “good” actor in its own story. Iran believes it is fighting a just war against American and Israeli aggression. Russia believes it is defending its legitimate security interests in Ukraine. China believes it is protecting its territorial integrity in the South China Sea.
If we permit each state to override international law based on its own moral assessment, the international system goes down an extremely dangerous road. Moral chaos follows. The strongest states will become the arbiters of what counts as “good,” and their moral assessments will be backed by their military power.
Historically, moral arguments about “civilisation,” “enlightenment,” or “improvement” were used to justify colonialism and slavery. The colonisers genuinely believed they were bringing progress to backward peoples. They saw themselves as the “good guys.” Their victims saw things differently, but their voices did not matter.
This is still happening in different contexts today: one group assumes its moral compass is universal, superior, and mandatory for all others. If the world returns to that mode of thinking, the strongest states will once again become the arbiters of what counts as “good.” International law must therefore remain objective, free from claims of moral exceptionalism.
The Flaw in the “Ineffective Law” Argument
The second argument—that international law is ineffective and therefore can be ignored—is even more problematic. It requires a deeper understanding of the role of international law in maintaining order.
If we disregard international law because someone violates it, it’s like rejecting the rule book while still using its language to call out a foul. Without the law, there would be no norms to appeal to, no expectation of protection, no shared belief that certain harms are prohibited. The law’s effectiveness is not measured by its perfect enforcement but by its role in shaping expectations and constraining behaviour.
This argument also doesn’t follow logic. Murders still happen in countries like Australia. Should we therefore abandon domestic laws that prevent them? Of course not. The existence of violations does not negate the value of the law; it underscores the need for better enforcement.
Of course, there are double standards in international law. Powerful states have greater impunity, and weaker states face more scrutiny. This is a real problem that must be acknowledged. But double standards also exist in domestic legal systems—wealthier people generally receive better outcomes than those with less means. The existence of inequality in international law shows the need for reform, not the abandonment of the law altogether.
The Purpose of International Law
The purpose of international law is not to determine who is morally good. It is to maintain order in a world where every state believes it is waging the “good” fight. The genius of the UN Charter system was to create objective standards—however imperfect—that could constrain the unilateral use of force.
Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 51 preserves the right of self-defence only “if an armed attack occurs.” The bar is high, and it is meant to be high. The framers of the Charter had seen the consequences of unchecked aggression. They understood that allowing states to decide for themselves when force was justified would lead to endless war.
The Iran war reveals a dangerous shift in the way states justify their actions: a growing preference for moral storytelling over legal reasoning. Once the narrative of a “just war” replaces the rule of law, there is little left to restrain powerful states from dominating weaker ones.
The Path Forward
What is to be done? The first step is to name the shift for what it is: a retreat from the principles that have governed international relations since 1945. The second step is to insist that legal questions remain central to public debate, not sidelined by appeals to morality.
This does not mean ignoring the moral dimensions of conflict. Wars have moral consequences, and those must be addressed. But moral reasoning should complement legal reasoning, not replace it. The question of whether a war is just should be asked alongside the question of whether it is lawful, not instead of it.
The third step is to work toward reforming international institutions to make them more effective and more equitable. The double standards that currently exist are real and damaging. They undermine the legitimacy of the law and provide fuel for those who would abandon it entirely. Addressing these inequities is essential to preserving the system.
The fourth step is to build public understanding of international law and its importance. The shift toward moral storytelling succeeds in part because the public does not understand the legal framework. Education and advocacy can change that.
Conclusion: The Good Fight and the Rule of Law
The Iran war is being fought on multiple fronts. There is the military front, with its bombs and missiles and casualties. There is the diplomatic front, with its alliances and condemnations. And there is the rhetorical front, with its competing narratives of good and evil.
On this last front, the forces of moral storytelling are winning. The language of legitimacy has displaced the language of legality in much of public debate. The question is no longer whether the war is lawful but whether it is justified—and on that question, every state can find its own answer.
This is a dangerous path. Once we abandon objective standards, once we allow each state to be the judge of its own cause, we return to the world that the UN Charter was designed to prevent: a world of unchecked power, of endless war, of the strong doing what they can and the weak suffering what they must.
The purpose of international law is not to determine who is morally good. It is to maintain order in a world where every state believes it is waging the “good” fight. If we forget that, we forget everything.
Q&A: Unpacking the Legal and Moral Arguments Around the Iran War
Q1: Why do legal experts consider the US-Israel attacks on Iran unlawful?
A: The attacks violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against states. The US and Israel have not provided evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat, which would be required to justify self-defence under Article 51. Neither country has sought UN Security Council authorisation. By all objective legal standards, this constitutes a clear breach of international law, regardless of the political justifications offered.
Q2: What is “just war theory” and how is it being used to justify the attacks?
A: Just war theory, developed by Christian philosophers like St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas, holds that violating the moral rule against violence may be permissible if the cause is “just.” Modern leaders are echoing this logic by framing the war as a necessary struggle between good and evil. Netanyahu and Trump have both portrayed the conflict in moral terms—the US and Israel as “good guys” fighting “bad guys”—implicitly arguing that moral righteousness should override legal constraints.
Q3: What are the two main arguments being used to dismiss international law in this context?
A: The first argument claims the attacks are morally just and therefore should be permitted regardless of what international law says. The second dismisses international law as ineffective or irrelevant, pointing to past violations and double standards. Both arguments have surface appeal but are deeply flawed. The first allows every state to consider itself the “good” actor, leading to moral chaos. The second fails to recognise that law’s value lies in shaping expectations and constraining behaviour, even when imperfectly enforced.
Q4: Why is allowing moral exceptionalism in international affairs dangerous?
A: If every state can act on its own sense of morality, the international system goes down an extremely dangerous road. Every state considers itself the “good” actor in its own story. Iran believes it is fighting a just war against American aggression; Russia believes it is defending its security in Ukraine. Historically, moral arguments about “civilisation” and “enlightenment” were used to justify colonialism and slavery. When the strongest states become arbiters of what counts as “good,” weaker states have no protection.
Q5: What is the purpose of international law, and how should we respond to its imperfections?
A: The purpose of international law is not to determine who is morally good but to maintain order in a world where every state believes it is waging the “good” fight. The UN Charter created objective standards to constrain unilateral force. Double standards and unequal enforcement are real problems, but they demonstrate the need for reform, not abandonment. We don’t abandon domestic laws because murders still occur; we work to improve enforcement. Similarly, international law must be strengthened, not discarded, even as we acknowledge its imperfections.
