Since the 1979 storming of the embassy and seizure of American diplomats in Tehran, the United States has imposed wave after wave of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. Over time, the sanctions have grown from Executive orders aimed at Iranian support for terrorism into a far more comprehensive congressional and international regime that focuses on Iran’s nuclear program. As negotiations over this program continue, legal analysis of non-proliferation agreements, sanctions law and the respective foreign policy powers of Congress and the President have become inextricably linked to the diplomatic initiative with the Islamic Republic.
Latest in Iran
This compilation gathers in one place recent insight and analysis from our contributors on legal and policy issues related to potential U.S. military action against Iran.
It turns out that Cyber Command’s June 2019 Iran operations may have been narrower—and more effective—than previously understood.
The department’s recent letter regarding the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force says a lot less than it might seem.
Self-defense may never be invoked to justify an act of retaliation or revenge in response to an unlawful threat that is no longer ongoing or imminent. So was the U.S. right to point to self-defense in justifying a strike against Iran following the shootdown of a U.S. drone?
After Iran shot down a U.S. Navy Global Hawk, the Trump administration considered airstrikes but apparently settled for a cyber response instead. Here’s a primer on the legal issues involved.
And what can Congress do about it?
The president’s statements on Iran represent a dramatic improvement in the quality of his argument.
U.S. military officials have confirmed media reports that Iranian military forces successfully shot down a U.S. drone in the vicinity of the Persian Gulf. What does the law say about the situation and possible U.S. responses?
Views might deviate along two axes: the debate about whether all uses of force constitute armed attacks and the debate about what requirements must be met before a state acts in collective self-defense of another state.
A review of the “maximum pressure” campaign raises the question: How far is the administration willing to go to make Iran change its behavior?