The current war has given all United Nations member states the opportunity to observe that, on numerous occasions since its creation, the UN has violated international law. It has also reminded them that international law defines an attack, such as that by Israel and the United States against Iran, as an “aggression.” Furthermore, 193 states (including Israel and the United States) have recognized the right of the attacked state to consider as co-aggressors those states that host military bases of the aggressors.

*

While we are preoccupied with news of the war or the price increases it is causing, the most important aspect of the current conflict with Iran is completely overlooked in the West: relying on one of the central texts of international law, the Islamic Republic of Iran has offered us a reinterpretation of our own commitments.

An illegal aggression by Israel and the United States

While it is obvious that Israel and the United States had no right to attack Iran on February 28, 2026, few of us say so publicly. The trend in the West is to avoid taking a stand. Therefore, few dare to say that Israel and the United States are behaving like barbarians.

Generally speaking, international law is not a code, comparable to a penal code, but a series of commitments to which those who have made them must adhere. These commitments include not behaving like barbarians, not resorting to war propaganda, renouncing colonization and recognizing the right of peoples to self-determination, refraining from threatening others, and refraining from attacking one’s neighbours or becoming complicit in such aggression.

It was only on April 10 that Ambassador Michael G. Waltz, the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations, declared that the ongoing war was intended to “protect U.S. armed forces in the region, ensure the free flow of maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz, and protect U.S. allies and regional partners from Iran and its proxies” [1]. Note that this justification does not address the initiation of the war, but only its continuation.

Simultaneously, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar explained that the current war, “Roaring Lion,” was merely the second phase of Operation “Rising Lion.” He justified it by claiming that Iran had responded to the initial Israeli bombings. Furthermore, he drew upon slogans from Iranian demonstrations (“Death to Israel!” “Death to the United States!”) to try to convince readers that Tehran had long sought to annihilate the entire Israeli Jewish population. This was followed by a demonstration that Iran was preparing to develop an atomic bomb and ballistic missiles, forcing Tel Aviv to act before it was too late. The letter concluded with a tribute to the “courageous Iranian people who sought to free themselves from the tyrannical yoke [of the regime].” [2]

In doing so, Israel, as is its wont, reinterpreted history to suit its purposes and conveniently ignored previous episodes (the bombing of the Iranian ambassador’s residence in Damascus on April 1, 2024, and the Iranian retaliation on October 1, 2024; the Israeli “preemptive” attack of June 13, 2025, and the subsequent Iranian response). However, as things stand, all three of these operations constitute “aggression” under the UN Charter.

The interpretation of the slogan “Death to Israel!” as a desire to annihilate the population of that state is erroneous. Tehran intends to put an end to the rogue state of Israel, which it proclaimed on May 14, 1948, and which it does not recognize, but not to kill its population, which it respects. Tehran remains committed to the partition plan for Palestine, adopted by the United Nations on November 29, 1947. Tel Aviv rejects it and assassinated the UN mediator, the Swede Folke Bernadotte, on September 17, 1948, when he arrived to study the boundaries of the areas to be allocated to Jews and Arabs.

Finally, the attribution of Iranian military nuclear research to Iran has been a recurring theme for Benjamin Netanyahu for some thirty years. It has never been proven, despite numerous attempts, including the theft of Tehran’s nuclear archives. On the contrary, Ayatollahs Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei issued fatwas prohibiting the use of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Above all, the Chinese and Russian delegations at the Lausanne and Vienna talks (2013-2015) attested that Iran did indeed cease all military nuclear research in 1988 and has never resumed it. Russia, which was conducting a civilian nuclear program in Iran until last month, is particularly well-positioned to make this assertion. Finally, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has never found any evidence of such a program, although it was not universally accepted.

However, the fact that this Israeli-American war is illegal does not indicate whether the Iranian response is.

Security Council Resolution

https://www.voltairenet.org/ecrire/?exec=article_edit&id_article=224426# 2817

(March 11, 2026)

Until now, we have all understood that a state under attack has the right to defend itself against its aggressor.

At the initiative of Bahrain, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2817 on March 11, 2026, which violates international law by condemning the Iranian response [3]. Only the Chinese and Russian delegations refused to endorse it. Ambassador Vasily Nebenzia, Russia’s permanent representative, nevertheless reiterated that “the authorities in Tehran have repeatedly emphasized that their retaliatory strikes are not specifically aimed at countries in the region, but rather at US military installations and infrastructure located on their territory, which constitute legitimate targets under Iran’s right to self-defense, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.” He referred to the headquarters of the Fifth Fleet (Bahrain), Prince Sultan Air Base (Saudi Arabia), Udayd Air Base (Qatar), Dhafra Air Base (United Arab Emirates), and bases in Kuwait, Jordan, and Iraq.

Since then, the conflict has spread. It now also involves the United Kingdom, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, and Australia.

Resolution 2817 is not only unbalanced (it fails to mention the aggression against Iran, focusing solely on the Iranian response taken out of context), but it also violates international law, which the Security Council is mandated to uphold (it ignores Iran’s right to self-defense).

China and Russia had proposed a competing resolution (S/2026/159), which was extremely restrained and simply urged the belligerents to cease their military operations and condemned “attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure.”

This is precisely where the problem lies: Iran, like any state at war, unintentionally harmed civilians in the Gulf and deliberately destroyed civilian infrastructure. International law, since its inception in 1899, prohibits attacks on civilian infrastructure without military justification. Iran, for example, destroyed desalination plants essential to the daily lives of the civilian population, without explaining how this was useful to its military objective.

General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (December 14, 1974)

According to Security Council procedure, Iran, a mere member state of the General Assembly, was only given the floor after the vote in the debate among the fifteen permanent members of the Council. At the time of the vote, China and Russia, which condemned the illegal aggression by Israel and the United States, had themselves overlooked Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Article 3, paragraph (f), of this resolution expressly stipulates that “The act of a State allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that State in the commission of an act of aggression against a third State” is also an act of aggression [4]. This resolution is one of the most important texts of international law. It explains what constitutes “aggression,” which all UN member states pledged never to commit by signing the organization’s Charter.

It was unanimously approved by the member states of the General Assembly, without a vote. Therefore, it is not open to debate.

It is likely that the members of the Security Council did not hear the statement made by the Iranian ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, describing it as binding on all (jus cogens). He returned to this point at length in a long series of letters in which he justified the attack on the Gulf States and Jordan.

For several weeks, the Gulf States and Jordan stubbornly maintained that they had called on the United States to establish military bases on their soil for their protection and that Iran had no right to attack them as it was doing. Gradually, as the letters continued to be exchanged, they realized they had fallen into a trap: by attacking Iran, their “protector” had made them targets. They abandoned their reference to Security Council Resolution 2817 and pleaded to assure Iran that they did not wish to be complicit in its aggression.

They attempted to highlight that Resolution 3314 (XXIX) did not authorize Iran to attack civilians; that this was the basis of international law: “not to behave like barbarians.” Tehran immediately ceased targeting desalination plants but continued to bomb US military bases. And when the Gulf States demanded compensation for the damage suffered, Iran escalated its demands. Accusing the Gulf States and Jordan of complicity with their aggressor, Tehran also demanded compensation from them, just as it had demanded from Israel and the United States.

The Convention on the Law of the Sea (December 10, 1982)

Another area of international law that this war compels us to reconsider is that of straits. Is it permissible to prevent passage through a strait or to levy a toll there? The Convention on the Law of the Sea stipulates that no one may prohibit the “innocent passage” of ships through the waters of their own straits, even if this is not explicitly stated. This provision obviously does not apply in times of war. The Convention says nothing about potential tolls.

Just as the Security Council adopted a resolution that violates international law, so too did a United Nations agency, the International Maritime Organization, adopt a declaration on March 19, 2026 [5], at the initiative of the United Arab Emirates. It demands “Iran immediately refrain, in accordance with international law, from any action or threat aimed at closing, obstructing, or otherwise hindering international navigation in the Strait of Hormuz or against merchant or commercial vessels in and around the Strait of Hormuz.”

This declaration was adopted through a procedural loophole that allowed for a departure from general law and bypassed the one-month notice period required for any meeting of the relevant bodies [6]. It was submitted by 115 of the 176 member states.

The waters of the Strait of Hormuz are not international. They are Omani and Iranian waters, with a small Emirati zone at its entrance to the Persian Gulf. This situation can be compared to that of the Strait of Dover, also known as the Strait of Calais, in the English Channel. There are no international waters there, only French and British waters.

During the Amoco Cadiz oil spill in 1974, 60,000 tons of crude oil were released onto 375 kilometers of coastline. France and the United Kingdom could have, at that time, not prohibited oil tankers from passing through, but required them to pay a toll to finance the cleanup. They did not, and France alone bore the cost of the disaster. Oman, Iran, and perhaps the United Arab Emirates could now establish a toll in the Strait of Hormuz to equip themselves with the necessary resources to cope with a potential catastrophe of this kind. No one could oppose this.

In the current climate, we have seen Iran block the passage of ships linked to aggressors, which is consistent, in times of war, with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We have also seen the United States almost completely blockade the strait, which is an act of war against Iran and an impediment to the free movement of foreign vessels. Finally, we have seen Iran collect a toll, sometimes as high as $2 million, for the passage of 250,000 tons of crude oil. While no one can dispute this toll in times of war, given the destruction inflicted on Iran, it cannot be imposed in times of peace.

Contrary to what has been claimed, Iran has never blocked the Strait of Hormuz to international navigation, but only to States that are at war with it. [7] On the contrary, it has denounced the blockade that the United States has put in place, in violation of the right to free navigation on the seas [8].

Notes

[1] “Justification for the US war against Iran”, by Michael G. Waltz, Voltaire Network, 10 March 2026.

[2] “Justification for the Israeli war against Iran”, by Gideon Sa’ar , Voltaire Network, 10 March 2026.

[3] “Security Council Resolution 2817 condemning the Iranian response”, Voltaire Network, 11 March 2026.

[4] “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) : Definition of Aggression”, Voltaire Network, 14 December 1974.

[5] « Action des Émirats arabes unis auprès de l’Organisation maritime internationale (OMI) », par Mohamed Abushahab, Réseau Voltaire, 28 mars 2026. « L’Iran conteste la “Déclaration” de l’OMI », par Amir Saeid Iravani , Réseau Voltaire, 9 avril 2026.

[6] “IMO Council Declaration on the Strait of Hormuz”, Voltaire Network, 19 April 2026.

[7] “Iran’s position on traffic in the Strait of Hormuz”, Voltaire Network, 22 March 2026.

[8] “Iran complains about the US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz”, by Amir Saeid Iravani , Voltaire Network, 13 April 2026.

Courtesy Thierry Meyssan; Translation Roger Lagassé

https://www.voltairenet.org/article224426.html