As President Donald Trump has heavily urged countries to vamp up their defense budgets, NATO leaders are preparing for a potentially monumental summit at The Hague, Netherlands. Following U.S. B-2 strikes on Iran nuclear sites and Britain’s release of their Strategic Defense Review, much of the world waits to see what will come about from this meeting.

U.S. STRIKES ON IRAN – Executive Overreach & Breach of International Law?

On Saturday the U.S. launched B-2 bombers to initiate Operation Midnight Hammer, bombing three crucial Iranian nuclear sites: Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. This comes after prior bombing on Iranian nuclear facilities conducted by Israel earlier this month, which led to the ongoing war between the two countries.

While President Trump has called this operation “very successful”, the Iranian foreign minister stated that it was an “outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.”

UN Secretary-General António Guterres responded to the strikes, calling them “a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge.”

CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL LAW

Many question whether the U.S. strikes were justified within the bounds of the UN Charter, particularly Article 51, as Trump had frequently labeled Iranian nuclear sites as an imminent threat.

“Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”

Article 51 of the UN Charter addresses actions taken in the form of self-defense, if there is a legitimate breach of peace. “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

A debate is unraveling which asks whether these strikes were justified as self-defense, and to what end does Article 2(4) of the UN Charter trigger the right of self-defense outlined in Article 51.

CONSULTING CONGRESS

To center this issue back on U.S. soil, there is an additional debate over whether the strikes proved to be an overreach of executive power, as members of Congress split over their responses.

Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona commended the strikes saying that the President has the right to act in the face of a clear and imminent threat to the U.S.

Sen. Tim Kaine of Virigina, and Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Ro Khanna of California had presented a war powers resolution out of concern over the U.S. becoming involved in the Middle East.

The Washington Post reports that Rep. Massie directly responded by suggesting that if the situation was as urgent as the administration suggested, “the White House should have called lawmakers back to Washington” – given the fact that the U.S. House was on recess last week.

The War Powers Resolution 1973 states that “lawmakers have a role in approving armed conflicts involving the United States not formally declared as a war.” What’s more, it is upheld that the powers belonging to the commander-in-chief are “limited to hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”

This delegation of power is to be exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization (legal power granted to a specified body like an organization or individual by a specific law), or in the event of a national emergency due to an attack on the U.S.

As of late, administrations have cited Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) to take limited military action. The AUMF of 2002 granted authority to the President regarding threats posed by Iraq in an effort to defend U.S. national security. Both Biden and Trump have cited this document in the past in order to take military action against militant groups in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and the Red Sea that were backed by Iran.

Nonetheless, Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota had told The Hill that President Trump had notified Congress of the strike plan “well within the 48-hour window defined by the War Powers Resolution.”

Lastly, concerns are rising over whether this was an indirect declaration of war with Iran, and whether President Trump is looking to incite regime change in Iran. Vice President Vance gave a statement following the strikes. He stated that the U.S. is not at war with Iran but with their nuclear program, mirroring remarks made by Trump; also mentioning that the U.S. is NOT looking for ‘regime change’ in Iran.

THE HAGUE SUMMIT

While the U.S. finds itself in a bind over Iran, President Trump has frequently encouraged other world leaders to increase their defense budgets. He has threatened to pull back U.S. defense sales to Europe.

In response, the UK has issued their Strategic Defense Review (SDR) in an effort to address warfighting readiness, increased defense spending, and military resilience from a “whole-of-society” approach.

Lord George Robertson, former Secretary General to NATO, met with other Senior Fellows at Brookings Institute, Fiona Hill and Thomas Wright, to discuss the release of Britain’s’ SDR during an online webinar.

Lord Robertson opened with a word of caution to the British – “you are not safe.” He continued by stating that now is not the time for the nation to penny-pinch its’ defense spending.

This, and other global crises, are sizing up for an intense summit tomorrow at The Hauge, Netherlands. 32 Allies are expected at the summit, including the U.S., UK, Turkey, Canada, Germany, France and others.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has offered remarks on the meeting saying, “We meet at a truly historic moment, with significant and growing challenges to our security.”

U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Ambassador, Matthew Whitaker, spoke from the State Department’s Brussels Media Hub meeting saying, “This summit is really about NATO’s credibility, and we are urging all of our Allies to step up to the plate and pay their fair share for transatlantic security.”

He offered additional answers to questions regarding U.S. presence at the summit.

Regarding Russia as a main threat to the Alliance Whittaker stated, “It is undeniable the reason we are so focused on increasing defense investment to 5% is because of Russia and the long-term threat Russia poses to NATO’s security.”

When asked if it is believed that Russia is negotiating in good faith in its’ war with Ukraine Whittaker stated, “I want to join a lot of voices condemning Russia’s strikes on civilians … There’s no military solution to the Russia-Ukraine war, and a diplomatic solution is necessary.”