Security Claims or Strategic Interests: A Critical Analysis of U.S. and Israeli Military Interventions in the Middle East under International Law

This paper critically examines the military interventions conducted by the United States and Israel in the Middle East through the lens of public international law. Drawing upon the foundational framework of the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4) prohibiting the use of force and Article 51 governing the right to self-defence, this study analyses whether such interventions meet the established legal thresholds under international law. The paper further evaluates the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), assessing how these principles have been invoked to justify military action and whether such justifications withstand legal scrutiny. Additionally, the study examines alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), including war crimes committed during military operations in the region. Through a comprehensive legal analysis of state practice, UN Security Council resolutions, and judgments of international tribunals, this paper argues that the military interventions carried out by the United States and Israel in the Middle East constitute systematic violations of international law. The study concludes that such interventions, often justified on grounds of self-defence or humanitarian necessity, lack legitimate legal basis and undermine the foundational principles of the international legal order. This research contributes to the growing academic discourse on the legality of the use of force and calls for stronger accountability mechanisms under international law.