The question of when the Iran war will end remains unresolved, as the US cannot even agree on when it began. A state department document seeks to justify the war as part of a years-long conflict, contradicting President Trump's initial rationale.
Contradictory Justifications
Within hours of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's assurance that 'the operation is over,' Trump declared on social media that it was not, threatening to resume bombing at a higher intensity if Iran rejects the peace plan. No bombs have fallen since, but the standoff continues. The state department's document of 21 April, the administration's first full legal justification for 'Operation Epic Fury,' was notably tardy, coming nearly two months after the bombing campaign began. More remarkably, it completely rejects the justification offered by Trump on 28 February, when he announced the assault to defend the American people from imminent threats from the Iranian regime.
Legal Assessment
The state department now insists that the US does not rely on a theory of imminence. Instead, it claims Epic Fury is simply the continuation of an armed conflict with Iran that has been ongoing for years. This raises the question of when the war began. The document suggests hostilities started during the Iranian revolution of 1979, or in 2019 when Iran-backed militias fired rockets at bases in Iraq, or in June 2025 when the US and Israel obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. Dating the start to June 2025 backdates US aggression by eight months and raises questions about the justification for that assault.
Implications for International Law
The document appears less designed to answer legal critics who condemn the war as a violation of the UN charter than to strengthen their critique. By insisting that Epic Fury is another battle in an ongoing war, the document uses unassailable logic to conclude that if a conflict has not ended, it must be ongoing. This complicates negotiations to end the war, as it suggests the US would have been justified in attacking Iran during the 2015 nuclear deal negotiations. Negotiations require trust that a settlement will end the conflict, which the state department's argument defeats.
An administration that offers specious arguments to defend domestic abuses of the rule of law would muster equally pathetic efforts to rationalize violations of international law. As Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth promised 'maximum lethality, not tepid legality,' tepid legality means illegality. Lawrence Douglas is the author of The Criminal State: War, Atrocity, and the Dream of International Justice and teaches at Amherst College.
