Iran and Russia are right. Or, at least, they are better interpreters of international law than the Harvard Law Review editor currently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. After Iran test-fired multiple ballistic missiles last week, the Obama administration has been at pains to find a legal basis on which to condemn the launches and push for more international sanctions. They should have thought of that before negotiating away all meaningful international legal restrictions on Iran’s conventional weapons programs as part of last summer’s nuclear deal.

Iran twice test-fired ballistic missiles last week. First, two Qiam-1 missiles, with a range of roughly 420 miles. The next day, it upped the ante by launching two longer range (about 1,250 miles) Qadr H missiles at targets in the strategically important Gulf of Oman, simulating attacks on U.S. naval assets, and emblazoned with the ominous message: “Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth” in Hebrew. This was not the first such occurrence since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was negotiated in July 2015—Iran fired its Emad missile in October 2015 and the Ghadr-110 a month later—but it was the first since the so-called “Implementation Day,” on January 16, 2016, changed the legal landscape in which Iran operates.