The US State Department has released a controversial legal justification for its war with Iran, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and heightened market anxiety over a May 1 Congressional deadline.
The U.S. State Department’s top lawyer argued the war with Iran is a lawful act of self-defense, a claim made just days before a key deadline for Congressional approval and as the conflict continues to roil energy markets. The legal memo, titled "Operation Epic Fury and International Law," asserts that the U.S. and Israeli airstrikes that began on February 28 were not the start of a new war but a continuation of an ongoing conflict rooted in decades of Iranian aggression.
"The President should comply with domestic and international law and end his war of choice," Representative Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement, calling the justification “late and weak.”
The conflict, which killed much of Iran’s senior leadership in its opening days, has brought traffic in the vital Strait of Hormuz to a standstill and caused a spike in global fuel prices. The administration's legal reasoning was met with swift condemnation from over 100 international law experts, who co-published a letter describing the war as "a clear violation" of the United Nations Charter, arguing there was no evidence of an imminent threat that could ground a self-defense claim.
With a May 1 War Powers Act deadline looming, the administration must secure Congressional authorization to continue the conflict. This presents a difficult task given bipartisan opposition and recent Reuters/Ipsos polling that shows a clear majority of Americans blame the administration for surging gasoline prices, which are weighing on the Republican Party ahead of midterm elections.
In the official statement, State Department Legal Adviser Reed Rubinstein cited "Iran's malign aggression over decades" and the need to defend its ally, Israel, as the core rationale. Rubinstein argued that because the U.S. has been in an armed conflict with Iran for years, it was unnecessary to assess whether an Iranian attack was imminent before launching the strikes. This position has been heavily criticized, with Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer now at the International Crisis Group, labeling the justification "both legally unpersuasive and analytically confused."
Stalemate at the Strait
The legal battle in Washington unfolds against a backdrop of a tense military and economic stalemate in the Middle East. Peace talks have stalled, with both the U.S. and Iran believing time is on their side. The U.S. continues to enforce a blockade of Iranian ports, while Iran has seized two ships and begun extracting toll fees from some vessels, weaponizing its control over the strategic chokepoint.
"Both President Trump and the Iranian leadership think they are winning, so we have a stalemate over the strait," said Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He expressed skepticism that the U.S. blockade would squeeze Iran enough to force concessions at the negotiating table.
The conflict is also reshaping regional alliances. While some Gulf states initially counseled the U.S. not to end hostilities prematurely, the prolonged instability is causing a fracture. According to CFR analysis, the United Arab Emirates has signaled it will draw closer to the U.S., while Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others are exploring new partnerships, wary of both an unreliable America and a truculent Iran. Ray Takeyh, another CFR senior fellow, noted that the Gulf Sheikdoms' vulnerabilities have been accentuated, leading them to balance relations rather than firmly siding with the U.S.
A War Against the Clock
The standoff has become a war of attrition, with both sides facing a ticking clock. For the United States, the longer the blockade on Iranian ports holds, the more economic pressure mounts on Tehran, which may soon run out of oil storage capacity. This could force Iran to shut down production from wells that would be difficult and costly to bring back online.
However, maintaining this pressure is costly. The U.S. currently has three aircraft carrier strike groups in the region, an unsustainable long-term commitment at a time when military resources are prioritized for the Indo-Pacific. Iran's leadership appears to be betting it can wait out the United States, knowing the global demands on its military. By controlling the Strait of Hormuz, Iran retains significant leverage to inflict economic pain, a strategy that Ray Takeyh suggests has gained priority for Tehran, though it has not abandoned its long-term nuclear ambitions.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
