WASHINGTON, D.C. – Iran is claiming that the recent U.S. and Israeli military action breaks international law, and it points to support from Canada, the United Kingdom, and France. Still, the claim has faced pushback in Washington and among many Western security analysts. They say Iran’s credibility suffers because of its past violations of international sanctions, its backing of armed proxy groups, and repeated clashes with global nuclear inspectors.
The dispute is turning into a wider geopolitical split. Canada’s strong criticism of the United States, delivered in Australia by Prime Minister Mark Carney, has also sparked talk that ties could worsen before sensitive CUSMA trade talks. As a result, some analysts warn that President Donald Trump, now back in office, could push to rework parts of the North American trade deal if tensions keep rising.
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel carried out coordinated airstrikes across Iran. Reports said the targets included nuclear sites, military assets, and senior regime leadership.
President Donald Trump called the operation a preventive move meant to end Iran’s nuclear drive and remove the Ayatollah-led leadership. Early accounts also claimed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei died, and that damage spread across more than 100 Iranian cities. Iran responded quickly, firing missiles and drones toward Israel and US positions in the Gulf. It also struck civilian areas in Dubai, while framing the attacks as self-defense under international law.
Still, Iran’s claim that the US-Israel action broke global rules has landed poorly with many watchers. For decades, Tehran has ignored sanctions, backed armed groups, and pushed actions that shake regional security.
That history is shaping today’s fallout. Allies such as Canada, the UK, and France criticized parts of the strikes, even as they condemned Iran’s regional attacks. Their mixed messaging shows growing strain inside the Western camp, with ripple effects that may reach trade talks tied to the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).
In the background, the split also raises the stakes for CUSMA trade negotiations in 2026. That pressure increased after Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, speaking in Australia, criticized the strikes and argued they broke key legal norms.
Iran’s Long Pattern of Defiance: Iran Sanctions Breaches and Global Rules
Iran’s anger over alleged legal violations stands out because Tehran has spent decades testing the limits of international enforcement. Since 1979, Iran has faced sanctions from the UN, the United States, the EU, and others.
Those measures aimed to restrict its nuclear program, respond to human rights abuses, and curb support for armed groups. Yet Iran has repeatedly worked around them through informal networks, proxy firms, and open defiance.
Here are key areas often cited by critics:
- Nuclear non-compliance: Iran has repeatedly fallen short of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and related UN expectations. In June 2025, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran violated non-proliferation duties, pointing to undeclared work and enrichment beyond agreed limits. After UN measures “snapped back” in October 2025 when Resolution 2231 expired, Iran kept advancing parts of its program. That escalation helped set the stage for the US-Israel attack on Iran in 2026.
- Human rights sanctions evasion: The EU and US have sanctioned Iranian officials tied to violent crackdowns, mass arrests, and executions. In January 2026, the EU added asset freezes and travel bans on militia commanders over abuses and alleged support linked to Russia’s war in Ukraine. Even so, Iran has used front companies and third-party workarounds to limit the impact. Ordinary people often pay the price when restrictions tighten, and goods become harder to get.
- Economic and financial sanctions breaches: US measures, including CISADA, restrict most trade with Iran. Even so, Tehran has kept revenue flowing through oil smuggling and indirect sales. These networks have been linked, in public reporting, to partners in China and Russia. In October 2025, the US sanctioned 38 entities accused of supplying Iran’s military. Canada has also imposed asset freezes tied to human rights abuses.
- Arms and missile proliferation: After 2025, when UN arms restrictions eased, Iran increased missile-related exports and support tied to ballistic technology concerns. Critics also point to continued weapons transfers to groups like the Houthis, which fuel conflict in Yemen and threaten shipping routes.
Taken together, these Iranian international law violations weaken Tehran’s credibility when it appeals to global norms after being attacked.
Iranian Regime Terrorism Globally: Proxies, Plots, and Pressure Campaigns
Sanctions are only part of the story. Iran has also faced long-running accusations of directing or supporting violence through partners and proxies. The US has listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. In many accounts, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) plays a central role, providing money, training, weapons, and planning support to aligned groups.
Examples often highlighted include:
- Support for Hezbollah: Iran provides major funding to Hezbollah, with estimates often reaching hundreds of millions per year. That support has helped enable attacks on Israel and US-linked interests. The group has also been tied to major historical bombings, including the 1983 US Embassy attack in Beirut.
- Backing Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): Iran has been accused of sending money, weapons, and technical support to armed groups in Gaza. That support has been tied in public debate to broader cycles of rocket fire, escalation, and retaliation, including the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel.
- Houthis in Yemen: Iran’s support for the Houthis has been linked to Yemen’s prolonged war, cross-border strikes on Saudi Arabia, and attacks on Red Sea shipping. Those actions also raise international maritime law concerns.
- Militias in Iraq and Syria: Iran-backed groups, including Kata’ib Hezbollah, have carried out attacks against US forces and partners. These campaigns have added to instability and helped sustain a wider proxy struggle across the region.
- Assassinations and overseas plots: Several European governments have accused Iran of targeting dissidents and Jewish or Israeli-linked sites abroad. Reports from 2021 to 2024 described dozens of disrupted plots, including surveillance and planned attacks, sometimes using criminal intermediaries.
- Africa and Indo-Pacific reach: Iran has also been linked to attempted attacks or planning activity in parts of Africa, including Uganda, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Similar allegations have surfaced in parts of Asia, including Thailand and India, often involving Israeli targets.
- Cyber and hybrid operations: Iran has run cyber campaigns against US and European infrastructure targets. These actions blur the line between espionage, intimidation, and sabotage.
The 2025 Global Terrorism Index has been cited in arguments that Iran-linked activity connects to incidents across many countries. Critics say that the record makes Iran’s current victim narrative hard to accept, even for audiences that oppose the strikes.
Allies Step Back: Canada, UK, and France Statements on Iran Strikes
The strikes also exposed stress inside the Western alliance. Canada, the UK, and France condemned Iran’s retaliation, but they also raised alarms about the legality and wisdom of the initial attack.
On March 1, 2026, France, Germany, and the UK released a joint statement criticizing Iran’s “indiscriminate” regional attacks. At the same time, they stressed they did not take part in the US-Israel operation and called for restraint. French President Emmanuel Macron warned that the situation was dangerous. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer also emphasized the UK’s non-involvement.
Canada went further. On March 4, in a speech at Australia’s Lowy Institute, Mark Carney said the strikes were inconsistent with international law and showed a breakdown in the international order.
He argued the action lacked UN consultation and did not meet the standard of an imminent threat. In that same Mark Carney speech in Australia, he urged middle powers to defend sovereignty and reinforce shared rules.
Legal critics have pointed to the UN Charter’s limits on the use of force without Security Council approval, unless self-defense applies against an imminent attack. Meanwhile, Iran’s counterstrikes, even when framed under Article 51, have hit civilian sites, which raises separate humanitarian law issues.
These fractures matter because Washington tends to remember public breaks, especially when other negotiations sit on the calendar.
CUSMA Trade Negotiations 2026: Trade Risks Grow as Politics Turn Sharper
The dispute is not just diplomatic. It could also shape trade, especially with the CUSMA trade negotiations 2026 approaching in July. Trump, who pushed the NAFTA rewrite in his first term, has increasingly dismissed CUSMA as unhelpful and has floated the idea of walking away.
Several factors are adding pressure:
- Trump’s pressure tactics: The White House has used tariff threats against Canadian goods, often tied to migration and fentanyl concerns. In February 2026, Trump imposed 25 to 50 percent tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper, which rattled supply chains across North America.
- Carney’s pushback: Carney said the old model of US-Canada integration is over, and he has called for a new security and economic arrangement. Talks had stalled in June 2025, then resumed after Canada dropped a digital tax plan.
- Risk of exit: Reports have said Trump has privately weighed whether to end the agreement, arguing it disadvantages the US. If governments do not renew by July 1, 2026, the deal could lapse, opening the door to a new tariff fight.
- Economic fallout: Higher tariffs tend to lift prices and disrupt auto, energy, agriculture, and manufacturing flows. Canada briefly responded with its own measures, but it has also signaled it wants to cool things down.
Because Carney tied his criticism to a broader claim about US law violation and a weakening world order, it may harden Trump’s view. That also increases chatter about whether Trump’s cancellation of CUSMA becomes more than a threat.
Conclusion: Iran’s Claims Meet Its Record, and Alliances Keep Splitting
Iran’s argument that the US-Israel strike violated international law has restarted debates over sovereignty, self-defense, and accountability. Yet Tehran’s history of Iran sanctions breaches, nuclear secrecy claims, and proxy warfare undercuts its moral standing in many capitals.
At the same time, the Western response shows a real split. Canada, the UK, and France tried to balance legal concerns with security fears, and that balance pleased no one fully.
As military conflict spills into diplomacy and trade, the impact could stretch far past the battlefield. If the alliance strain continues and CUSMA talks collapse, North American trade could shift fast, with costs measured in jobs, prices, and long-term trust.
Iran wants the world to treat it as the wronged party. However, its long record of defiance makes that a hard sell. Meanwhile, allies speaking on principle may still pay a price, especially if Washington chooses retaliation at the negotiating table instead of compromise.
