American Prestige Special - International Law and the War on Iran w/ Maryam Jamshidi
8 snips
Mar 11, 2026 Maryam Jamshidi, an associate law professor focused on international and national security law. She parses shifting legal justifications for strikes on Iran. She contrasts preemption and preventive war. She assesses limits of self-defense, proportionality concerns over civilian harm, and the political motives shaping the conflict.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Legal Justifications Were Contradictory And Implausible
- The U.S. and Israel offered shifting, implausible legal justifications for attacking Iran, none of which meet international law standards.
- Maryam Jamshidi lists three versions: preemption of Israeli or Iranian attacks, direct U.S. threat, and preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon—each lacking evidence.
Self Defense Requires Imminent Or Ongoing Attack
- Under international law only self-defense after an attack or Security Council authorization permits force.
- Jamshidi emphasizes self-defense requires an ongoing or imminent attack, not speculative future threats like alleged nuclear ambitions.
War Was Treated As An Afterthought Politically And Legally
- The Trump administration treated legal justification as an afterthought and did not mount the kind of PR or international effort seen before the Iraq war.
- Jamshidi argues the administration's broader posture rejects international law constraints entirely.