Officials say Obama has right to take unilateral action when US citizens are at risk, as Nato leaders ponder military intervention

The Obama administration is pointing to its failed attempt to rescue hostages in Syria as a possible precedent for further military intervention against Islamic State (Isis) militants, as Nato leaders began rehearsing the political arguments likely to deployed alongside any future attacks in the country.



Officials stress that no military actions have yet been announced and decline to speculate on whether such an argument would serve as its legal basis, but they say the attempt to rescue journalist James Foley and others is an example of how the administration believes it has a right to take unilateral action when US citizens are at risk.

“You’ll note that we did not coordinate or ask permission from the regime in executing our attempted rescue operation earlier this summer,” one senior administration official told the Guardian.

“The president directed that mission consistent with his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, in order to protect the life of American citizens abroad and to further US national security interests.”

The argument goes further than another possible legal justification aired by British prime minister David Cameron on Thursday, who pointed to the Assad government’s lack of political legitimacy as a reason why its permission would not be necessary before any strikes against Isis on Syrian territory.

Similar claims have been made by officials in Washington, but it could be harder for the White House to rely solely on this as a justification for attacks within Syria, because it potentially contradicts other recent US statements.

In Iraq, for example, the US has repeatedly stressed that its legal authority to carry out strikes against Isis stems directly from having been invited to assist the Iraqi government.

Future arguments that the Assad regime is not “legitimate” would also be complicated by the fact that the US did recognise the government in Damascus as a representative of Syria when negotiating over the removal of chemical weapons.

Nevertheless, a combination of all of these arguments looks increasingly likely to serve as the supposed legal backdrop for attacking Isis in Syria if Obama and Cameron do decide such action is necessary on security grounds.

In particular, US officials are adamant that strikes against Isis rebels operating inside Syria should not be seen as tacit support for the Assad regime, which they continue to argue has lost “legitimacy to lead” due to attacks against civilians during the long-running civil war.

“We are not coordinating with the Assad regime regarding any contingency plans that the US military is developing,” said US national security spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden.

“As we’ve made very clear, the United States will act when our people are threatened, regardless of geographic boundaries. Beyond that, I’m not going to speculate on the legal basis or diplomatic work around military actions that we have not yet said we will take.”

Justifying any attacks under international law would also complicated by the potential need for Obama to seek domestic legal authorisation from Congress.

Unlike earlier attempted moves against Assad last year, the White House has so far refused to say whether it believes explicit congressional approval is necessary, although some hawkish lawmakers are preparing pre-emptive authorisation as a way to remove possible excuses for the administration not to act.