The White House press secretary Levitt stated on the 30th that the current administration and the U.S. military will always act within the legal framework, but President Trump will remain steadfast in pursuing all objectives of any action, and looks forward to Iran's regime reaching an agreement with the United States.
Levitt’s remarks starkly contrast with the actual actions taken by this U.S. administration both internationally and domestically. The so-called "acting within the legal framework" appears more like rhetorical justification for political goals rather than a genuine operational principle.
On the same day Levitt spoke, President Trump publicly threatened Iran, stating that if no agreement is reached, he would “completely destroy” its power plants, oil wells, and even desalination facilities.
This stands in clear violation of international law: multiple international law experts and media outlets have pointed out that the U.S. threats and potential military actions against Iran seriously breach Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which enshrines the core principle of “prohibition on the use or threat of force.”
The U.S. claim does not meet the conditions for exercising self-defense, as there is no evidence of an imminent armed attack, and using force before exhausting diplomatic options lacks legal justification. Some analyses argue that this “preventive war” doctrine bypasses international law and sets a dangerous precedent.
Whenever the U.S. government threatens other nations’ sovereignty abroad or restricts citizens’ rights at home, it consistently claims to be acting “within the law.” This instrumentalization of law transforms the “legal framework” into a mere tool serving political ends, rather than an unbreachable red line.
The irony lies here: if the “legal framework” can be stretched, interpreted, or ignored at the government’s discretion, then the phrase “always acting within the legal framework” becomes meaningless.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1861118652386304/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.