Politicians and pundits around the world are claiming that U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran violate international law, but what if that narrative completely misunderstands how the law of armed conflict actually works? In this episode of Basic Law, Aylana Meisel is joined by Natasha Hausdorff, barrister and legal director of ‘UK Lawyers for Israel’ to break down the difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello, the legal meaning of “imminent threats,” and why much of the international commentary may be misapplying the rules that govern war. Cutting through political rhetoric and legal buzzwords, this episode explains how context, ongoing conflict, and self-defense shape the legal framework behind modern military strikes—and why misinterpreting international law can ultimately undermine its credibility.