NEW YORK, NY – In the aftermath of recent U.S. military operations targeting Iranian assets, a handful of opinion writers and activist groups have begun referring to these strikes as the “illegal bombing of Iran.” While such language may resonate with their audience, it is neither factually accurate nor legally established – and publications using it, such as Salon.com, should be approached with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Let’s be clear: No domestic or international court has ruled that these strikes were illegal. In fact, under the U.S. Constitution, the President possesses broad authority as Commander-in-Chief to initiate limited military action to protect national interests. Historically, both Republican and Democratic presidents have exercised this power – often without prior congressional approval – and courts have consistently declined to intervene.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 does impose procedural requirements, such as notifying Congress within 48 hours and limiting operations to 60 days without authorization. But noncompliance with this statute has never been judicially enforced in a way that would classify a military action as “illegal.” If anything, these strikes exist in a gray zone that Congress has long tolerated.
On the international front, critics argue that the strikes violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against other nations. Yet Article 51 of that same Charter allows for self-defense – a clause the U.S. routinely invokes to justify defensive or preemptive actions. Whether or not one agrees with the strategic wisdom of the strike, calling it “illegal” is an opinion, not a verdict.
Words matter, especially in journalism. When outlets label a military action “illegal” without citing a ruling from a court or body with jurisdiction, they are not reporting – they are editorializing. And in doing so, they mislead readers who expect factual, legally grounded information.
While Salon categorizes the article as “Commentary” on its own website, the labeling lacks clarity for casual readers, especially those skimming headlines. Interestingly, it is only when the piece is republished or syndicated through Yahoo News that it is explicitly labeled as “Opinion”, giving readers the proper context that the content reflects personal or editorial viewpoints rather than straight reporting.
Though “Commentary” can imply analysis or perspective, the term is often ambiguous outside of journalism circles. In contrast, “Opinion” is universally understood to mean the views expressed are those of the author, not a neutral presentation of fact.
The use of this term also undercuts public understanding of the law itself. If every controversial or contested action is labeled “illegal,” the term loses its meaning. Worse, it fuels distrust in institutions and confuses readers about what is lawful versus what is simply unpopular or politically opposed.
In a media environment already plagued by polarization and misinformation, precision in language is essential. Publications that recklessly declare U.S. military actions “illegal” without legal basis are peddling narrative, not news – and should be treated accordingly.
Readers deserve better.
They deserve journalism grounded in verifiable fact, not legal fiction disguised as moral outrage.
