The unprecedented confession by the President of the United States regarding the authorization of an attack on Iran has once again placed the principle of the prohibition of the use of force at the center of the global community’s attention. Nasser Kanaani, former spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in an exclusive interview with IranView24, elaborates on the legal and political dimensions of this action and describes it as a “worrying challenge to the legitimacy of the international order.”
Afifeh Abedi – IranView24
In the current tense climate of international relations, where the fundamental principles and norms of the United Nations Charter are once again being tested, recent statements by Donald Trump, President of the United States, regarding the authorization of a military attack by the Israeli regime against the Islamic Republic of Iran, have sparked widespread reactions within political and legal circles worldwide.
In such circumstances, the role of diplomacy, adherence to the UN Charter, and the maintenance of constructive dialogue are more important than ever. To examine the political, legal, and diplomatic dimensions of this issue, we conducted an exclusive interview with Nasser Kanaani, former spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, to explore the various aspects of this development and its potential implications for regional and international order.
The Legal Status of Trump’s Admission from the Perspective of International Law
The former spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in response to a question asking, “From the perspective of public international law, what is the legal status of this admission and what are its implications?”, stated:
“These statements constitute a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, and in particular, the fundamental principle prohibiting the use of force in international relations. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the United States has special obligations to maintain international peace and security; however, this action represents a direct breach of those obligations under both customary and treaty-based international law. More precisely, this admission not only violates a fundamental principle of international relations but also poses a serious challenge to the international legal system based on the UN Charter, which for nearly eight decades has been the central framework regulating the conduct of states in the global arena.”
Diplomatic Implications and the Consequences of Structural Distrust
In response to a question regarding the simultaneity of this admission with Western pressures for Iran’s return to the negotiating table and its impact on deepening structural distrust between Tehran and Washington, Kanaani stated:
“This action can be seen as a clear violation of the principle of good faith in international relations, which is considered one of the fundamental principles of the law of treaties. As the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran pointed out, in response to Iran’s good faith and diplomatic approach, the United States effectively ‘blew up the negotiating table.’ This aggressive action by the U.S. demonstrates that dialogue and mutual respect have been replaced by a policy of pressure, threat, and non-constructive behavior.”
He further added:
“The widespread condemnation of this action by more than 120 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement also reflects the international community’s emphasis on the necessity of resorting to peaceful solutions and avoiding violence in resolving international disputes. This broad consensus represents the global community’s collective rejection of the military aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
International Repercussions and Implications Beyond the Bilateral Level
Regarding the transnational dimensions of this admission, this senior diplomat stated:
“The significance of Trump’s admission goes beyond the bilateral level. The official acknowledgment by the President of a permanent member state of the Security Council of having committed an act of aggression constitutes a direct violation of obligations toward the entire international community. A state that itself flagrantly breaches the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter cannot occupy a position within an institution whose primary mission is the maintenance of international peace and security. This behavioral contradiction undermines the moral and normative legitimacy of the United States’ permanent membership and brings the necessity of reviewing the structure and mechanisms of the UN Security Council back to the forefront of international legal and political discourse. Therefore, other states also bear the responsibility to respond with appropriate legal and political measures. Silence in the face of such conduct could be interpreted as weakening the mechanisms for maintaining global peace and the legitimacy of institutions such as the Security Council, and, in the long term, could lead to the collapse of mutual trust and the erosion of the rule-based international order.”
Legal Avenues Available to the Islamic Republic of Iran
In response to the question, “From a legal standpoint, what avenues are available for Iran to pursue this matter?”, the former spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained:
“In accordance with the general rules of international law, the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses the inherent right of self-defense, as well as the right to pursue political and legal actions against acts of aggression through international mechanisms. Accordingly, in the letter of the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, it was emphasized that this admission constitutes a basis for demanding the accountability of the United States government and for seeking full reparation for material and moral damages, including compensation arising from the attack. Such pursuit may take place within the framework of invoking the international responsibility of the wrongful state and through the mechanisms envisaged in the Charter of the United Nations.”
