The modern international order rests on a foundational promise: states must resolve disputes peacefully, and force may be used only as a last resort and only within the bounds of law. The US helped build this system after World War II, embedding these principles in the UN Charter and in its own Constitution. Yet the US military operations in Venezuela in January 2026 and in Iran on February 28, 2026 represent a sharp break from these commitments. Both actions were undertaken without United Nations authorization and without congressional approval, raising profound questions about legality, constitutional governance, and the erosion of global norms.

At the same time, these operations resulted in the removal of two deeply abusive leaders—one captured and jailed, the other killed. Their departure from power may indeed contribute to international peace and security. But the legality of the means matters. The rule of law is what separates legitimate action from aggression, and it is what prevents powerful states from deciding unilaterally which governments may live or die.

The International Legal Framework

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Only two narrow exceptions exist:

• Self-defense under Article 51, triggered by an armed attack
• Security Council authorization under Chapter VII

Neither exception applied to the US operations in Venezuela or Iran. Experts consulted in early 2026 concluded that the Venezuela strike had run “afoul of the United Nations Charter that prohibits unjustified uses of military force by one country against another.”

The same legal analysis applies to the February 28, 2026 attack on Iran. Without Security Council authorization or a valid self-defense claim, the operation constitutes an unlawful use of force.

With respect to regime change, international law is explicit: forcibly removing a foreign head of state without legal justification is aggression. The US’s extraction of Nicolás Maduro from Venezuelan territory and its lethal strike against Iran’s leadership fall squarely within this definition. These actions violated the sovereignty of UN member states and bypassed the collective security system that exists precisely to prevent unilateral military adventurism.

The Paradox: Tyrants Removed, Peace Advanced—But Law Broken

There is no question that both leaders presided over regimes marked by repression, corruption, and violence. Their removal may well improve regional stability and reduce human suffering. History shows that the fall of violent, authoritarian rulers can open space for peace, democracy, and accountability.

But international law does not permit states to unilaterally decide which tyrants to remove by force — no matter how brutal, or how welcome their removal.

Domestic Constitutional Violations

The US Constitution divides war powers deliberately. Article I gives Congress—not the President—the power to declare war. Article II makes the President Commander in Chief, but does not authorize unilateral war-making.

The War Powers Resolution reinforces this structure by requiring congressional authorization for sustained hostilities. Experts analyzing the Venezuela strike noted that the operation violated not only international law but also domestic law, including constitutional requirements for congressional approval.

The 2026 operations in Venezuela and Iran were undertaken without congressional authorization. This is not a procedural oversight—it is a constitutional breach.

Presidents cannot initiate war simply by invoking national security. The Framers feared exactly this kind of unilateral executive action. By bypassing Congress in the Iran strike, the President acted outside constitutional boundaries and weakened democratic oversight. And when the executive branch claims the authority to wage war unilaterally at home, it simultaneously signals to the world that American power operates outside the rules it demands others follow.

The Consequences of Unlawful Force

When Washington violates the UN Charter, it erodes the credibility of the very system the US helped create. It also emboldens authoritarian states to justify their own aggression. If the US treats force as a routine instrument of foreign policy, others will follow.

Unilateral uses of force, as seen in regime change operations like the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, can lead to a host of crises, including regional instability, power vacuums, the spread of anti-American sentiment, and cycles of retaliation.

Even when the outcome—the removal of a tyrant—is broadly viewed as beneficial, the long-term strategic costs can be severe.

If states justify unlawful force because the outcome is desirable, the prohibition on aggression collapses. Every aggressor claims noble motives. International law exists precisely to prevent this slippery slope.

Reconciling the Paradox: Celebrating the Outcome, Condemning the Means

It is entirely consistent to hold two truths at once:

• The removal of brutal, destabilizing leaders can advance international peace and security.
• The US violated international and domestic law in removing them.

The world can celebrate the fall of tyrants while still condemning unlawful methods. In fact, insisting on lawful means is what ensures that future interventions—whether humanitarian or strategic—are legitimate, accountable, and consistent with the rule of law.

The end may be laudable. The means must be discredited.

The US’s actions in Venezuela and Iran highlight a dangerous trend: the normalization of unilateral force as a tool of foreign policy. Even when the outcome is positive, the violation of international law and constitutional limits sets a precedent that threatens global stability and undermines America’s own legal foundations.

If the US wishes to remain a leader in promoting peace, democracy, and human rights, it must recommit to the principles it helped establish: peaceful dispute resolution, collective security, and constitutional governance. Tyrants may fall—but they must fall through lawful means, or the world risks descending into a new era of unchecked aggression.