“The Islamic Republic of Iran has been attacked militarily for the second time while it was on the path of diplomacy and negotiations. Several rounds of negotiations had already been held, and even a sixth round was scheduled for June 15. Intensive talks took place in Geneva between the Iranian and American delegations, and both sides expressed satisfaction with the progress. It was agreed that technical teams from the two countries would be sent to Vienna to resolve the remaining issues. However, two days before that meeting, the American and Israeli military attack on Iran began,” it was stated by the Ambassador of Iran to Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) His Excellency Abuzar Ebrahimi Torkaman.
“It is very unfortunate that those who oppose peace, diplomacy, and negotiations decided to destroy the process just as it was progressing well. A media atmosphere was created against the Islamic Republic of Iran, with numerous accusations and false and misleading information circulated. In the end, those opposing diplomacy achieved what they wanted. Our choice was diplomacy. This military aggression represents a clear violation of the principle prohibiting the use of force and paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, as well as the provisions of international humanitarian law,” H.E. said.
He added that Iran witnessed how the principle prohibiting the use of force – the very essence of the UN Charter – was violated in the worst possible way through the attack of the United States on Iran, carried out by a country that is itself a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
“One day they establish a Peace Committee, and the next day they violate the most fundamental principle of peacekeeping: refraining from the use of force. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran has the inherent right to self-defense until the aggression is completely stopped,” Torkaman added.
“During the military aggression last June, Mr. Trump announced that all of Iran’s nuclear facilities had been destroyed. Then again, on February 28, under the argument that Iran was being prevented from developing nuclear weapons, Iran was attacked with the complicity of Israel. Which of these statements is correct? This is a deception of public opinion. Negotiations had progressed to the stage of drafting the text of the agreement, but those who kept Gaza in flames managed to override rational thinking in Washington and launch this illegal aggression. The same justification was used in the attack on Iraq. At that time as well, it was claimed that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons. After the attack and the loss of many lives, it was officially announced that no traces of nuclear weapons production had been found,” he added.
Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities have been repeatedly confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Its inspectors have continuously monitored Iran’s facilities and repeatedly confirmed that the country’s activities are peaceful.
Perhaps the most troubling statement is the official claim by the United States that if they had not attacked, Iran would have. This argument contradicts itself, as it acknowledges that Iran did not attack. Such an interpretation of intent is not recognized in international law and, if generalized, would undermine all international legal principles and rules.
Attacks on Children and Educational Institutions
Attacks on children and schools constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law and represent a clear example of war crimes. In these attacks, children are targeted simply because they are in school and engaged in educational activities. Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocol I of 1977, and Article 8 of the Rome Statute, civilians and children are protected from attack, and any attack against them is considered a war crime.
In these attacks, more than 170 children between the ages of 7 and 12 were killed, their childhood hopes and aspirations destroyed by the bombs that fell on them.
Legal Consequences of Attacks on Civilian Facilities
Mosques, hospitals, schools, and residential areas are protected under international humanitarian law, including Articles 48, 51, and 52 of Additional Protocol I of 1977. Attacks on such facilities are unlawful and constitute grave violations of international law, human rights, and the rules of civilized conduct. These acts may be prosecuted as war crimes. The World Health Organization has also confirmed attacks on such facilities and considers them unlawful.
Attacks on hospitals and mosques not only endanger civilian lives but are also aimed at destroying public trust and undermining the vital infrastructure of society. We have also noted attacks on the diplomatic police in Iran, an institution responsible for protecting foreign embassies and diplomatic missions. Targeting them represents a clear violation of diplomatic rights under the 1961 Vienna Convention, as well as the broader principles protecting diplomatic activity in international law. Such actions undermine diplomacy and represent a deliberate violation of the norms governing relations between states.
Legal Consequences of Killing the Leader of Iran
Under international law, state leaders represent the sovereignty of their countries and are protected from aggression. An attack on the leader of Iran would constitute a grave violation of paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter and the fundamental principles of international relations. Such actions threaten the stability of the international system and create a dangerous and unprecedented precedent in relations between states.
In addition to his official role, the leader of Iran is also a religious figure respected by millions of Muslims worldwide. He has stated that the production and use of nuclear weapons are haram. Any attack against him would carry significant political, social, and legal consequences, and responsibility would lie with the perpetrators and the states involved.
Destruction of Cultural Heritage
The rocket attack and destruction of Golestan Palace and Arg Square in Tehran — both permanent historical symbols of Iran and sites listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List — represent a clear violation of international humanitarian law and constitute a war crime against cultural heritage.
Such actions violate:
- The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict
- The 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions
- Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
- The 1970 UNESCO Convention and established norms of international law
These violations carry both international and criminal responsibility for those who commit them.
Unfortunately, international law is increasingly being ignored. International humanitarian law has been violated, and the principles of the UN Charter are being undermined. Military aggression against Iran could mark the beginning of the erosion of the UN system itself. The international community must fulfill its obligations before it is too late and before the conflict spreads to other regions.
Concrete measures must be taken to force the aggressors to stop their actions. If the international community neglects this responsibility, it will inevitably face the consequences. It must be emphasized that Iran did not initiate this war but was subjected to military aggression. The inherent right to legitimate self-defense, protected under international law, allows Iran to protect its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the security of its people. While doing so, Iran states that it remains committed to the principles of humanitarian law and that its actions are carried out within the framework of international legal and moral norms, His Excellency concluded.
