People participate in a funeral procession for the Iranians killed in the ongoing US-Israeli aggression in the city of Isfahan, central Iran, on March 7, 2026. (Photo by Tasnim news agency)

Several legal scholars and bipartisan lawmakers have stated that US President Donald Trump`s administration is waging an illegal war of aggression on Iran, and the offensive both defies the US Constitution and international armed conflict laws.

"These are military policy objectives," said Wells Dixon, a senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

"They are not a legal basis to launch an armed attack against another country," he said as he challenged the legal basis for the administration`s explanations for waging war.

Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the University of Reading, said even though Iran may pose a threat to the US, there are many ways to respond.

"Using force would require a basis in self-defense," he said.

The legislators and legal experts also pointed out that there are carve outs within international law that permit states to act in their own self-defense.

They emphasized that the concept of an "imminent threat" is measured against evidence of a clear, visible and impending risk.

"For something to be lawful self-defense, it has to be necessary - in the sense that there`s no alternative," Brian Finucane, a former state department lawyer, said.

"That`s not the situation here. There was another option: the US could have restrained Israel from attacking in the first place," he said.

Finucane highlighted that previous administrations have drawn this line with Israel.

"There was no imminent threat to the United States of America by the Iranians. There was a threat to Israel," Mark Warner, the Democratic vice-chair of the Senate intelligence committee, said.