Military Aggression Against Iran and the Responsibility of the International Community
Military Aggression Against Iran and the Responsibility of the International Community
What happened against the Islamic Republic of Iran on 28 February 2026 was not merely another military development in the already turbulent Middle East. We are facing a clear, deliberate, and pre-planned act carried out by the United States and the Israeli regime. This action has not only violated Iran’s sovereignty and territorial integrity but has also challenged the fundamental principles of international law by targeting residential areas, schools, hospitals, relief centers, vital infrastructure, and peaceful nuclear facilities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In addition to causing extensive human and infrastructure damage, these attacks were accompanied by an unprecedented action in international relations: the deliberate targeting of the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran. On the very first day of the attacks, a civilian building in Tehran was struck, resulting in the death of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, along with members of his family. Such an act, regardless of any political disagreement, represents a clear violation of fundamental principles of international law, including the protection of the lives of high-ranking state officials and the prohibition of political assassination in international relations. This includes obligations under the 1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, which considers attacks against heads of state and other senior officials to be international crimes.
For us in Iran, this is not simply a political or geopolitical matter. It is directly connected to human lives, the safety of civilians, regional stability, and the credibility of the international legal system. For this reason, public opinion and political institutions in Europe—especially in a country such as Sweden, which has consistently emphasized multilateralism, international law, and the protection of civilians—should examine this situation carefully and responsibly.
According to available information and reports, the recent attacks were not limited to military targets. A primary school in Minab, hospitals in Tehran and Ahvaz, Tabriz, residential buildings, facilities affiliated with the Iranian Red Crescent Society, libraries, and media centers were among the targets. In one of the most shocking cases, an attack on a primary school in Minab led to the death of more than 165 children and several teachers. Initial figures also indicate that a significant proportion of the victims during the first week of the attacks were children, women, and elderly people.
According to official statistics released by the relevant authorities in Iran, nearly 13,800 civilian sites were targeted during these attacks. These include 11,293 residential units, 65 schools — including the Minab primary school — and 13 medical centers.
Alongside these attacks, the targeting of Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities in Natanz, which are under safeguards and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, has added a highly dangerous dimension to this crisis. An attack on such facilities is not merely an assault on a national infrastructure; it is an action that could have cross-border human and environmental consequences and weaken established principles related to nuclear safety and the monitoring mission of the Agency. The international community cannot remain indifferent to such an act, because silence in this regard does not only weaken one country—it also erodes the credibility of international institutions.
In recent days, American officials have attempted, using irresponsible and sometimes insulting language, to distort the facts on the ground and even deny responsibility for attacks on civilian targets. At the same time, certain remarks by Donald Trump, the President of the United States, about the possibility of changing Iran’s geographical map—alongside attacks on the country’s border control centers—have shown that this issue is not merely a limited military operation. Rather, it is accompanied by more dangerous ideas related to destabilization, fragmentation, and the imposition of political will from outside. Such an approach is not only incompatible with the United Nations Charter but also contradicts the costly and failed experiences of foreign interventions in the region, which have brought neither peace nor stability.
Statements by some American politicians have also raised serious questions about the real motivations behind this war. For example, Lindsey Graham, a U.S. senator, stated that if the United States gained access to Iran’s resources, Washington could control around 31 percent of the world’s oil resources and earn billions of dollars from them. Such remarks strengthen concerns that some military interventions are driven primarily by the desire to gain access to other countries’ resources. If this logic becomes normalized, it could in the future affect the security and resources of other regions of the world as well, including Europe and strategic areas such as Greenland.
In response to this aggression, the people of Iran have shown a reaction that may have been unexpected for many foreign observers. Despite the continuation of the attacks, large public gatherings have been seen in cities across Iran—from Shiraz and Tabriz to Tehran, Qom, Isfahan, Ahvaz, Rasht, Yazd, and others—during funeral ceremonies, public assemblies, and marches. This presence is not only an expression of national mourning; it also reflects social solidarity, defense of national sovereignty, and clear opposition to foreign attacks against the country. Those who believed that military pressure on civilians could break the will of a nation have faced a different reality.
At the institutional level as well, the Islamic Republic of Iran has shown that even under the most difficult circumstances it does not depart from its legal frameworks and official mechanisms. The continued administration of the country, coordination among responsible institutions, and the implementation of procedures set out in the constitution all demonstrate that Iran has adopted a responsible and stability-oriented approach in the face of strategies aimed at creating a vacuum, chaos, and internal collapse. This point is important for any fair observer: a country under attack is simultaneously defending its people while safeguarding public order and its legal structure. The process of selecting the new Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran also took place within the framework of the constitution and with the necessary speed and order, demonstrating that the country’s governing structures are capable of responsibly continuing the administration of affairs even during wartime.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has never been the initiator of war. We did not start this war, and we have never sought to expand the crisis in the region. However, according to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, every UN member state has the inherent right of self-defense against an armed attack. Iran’s defensive actions should be understood within this legal framework. The distinction between the initiator of aggression and a country acting in self-defense is a fundamental one in international law, and any attempt to blur this distinction would weaken one of the clearest principles of the UN Charter.
In this context, the responsibility of international institutions and of states that claim to be committed to a rule-based order is very serious. The United Nations Security Council, the UN Secretary-General, and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency should not be satisfied with ambiguous and cautious positions in response to attacks on civilians and peaceful facilities under international supervision. Double standards in the implementation of international law damage above all the credibility of the very institutions that are meant to safeguard global peace and security.
Today, Republic of Sweden and other European countries face a real test. Are principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, the protection of civilians, respect for state sovereignty, and holding violators of international law accountable truly universal principles? Or are they selective concepts applied depending on the identity of the actor and the victim? One cannot speak about human rights while remaining silent in the face of the bombing of schools and hospitals. One cannot defend the rights of women and children while offering only minimal or vague reactions when women, children, and infants lose their lives in military attacks.
Among the victims of the recent attacks are mothers, teenage girls, and young children. This reality should give serious pause to all those who speak loudly about human dignity and the protection of women. Silence in the face of the killing of Iranian women and children raises legitimate questions about the moral sincerity of some who claim to defend human rights.
Iran has always emphasized the principle of good neighborliness and regional stability and has regarded neighboring countries not as threats but as potential partners for peace and development. We believe that regional security should be achieved by the countries of the region themselves through dialogue, mutual respect, and non-interference by external powers. Experience has shown that the presence and military intervention of the United States in the region have not brought security; rather, they have been among the main sources of instability.
Today, the issue is not only Iran. The question is whether the international community is willing to defend the principles it has itself established. If an attack on the territory of a United Nations member state, political assassination, the targeting of civilians, and attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities are left without a clear legal and political response, the message to the world will be extremely dangerous: that power has replaced law.
We expect the international community, the responsible institutions of the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and responsible governments in Europe—including Sweden—to clearly condemn this aggression, refrain from normalizing it, and take effective action to stop the attacks and hold those responsible accountable. Silence in such moments is not neutrality; it leads to the weakening of the very order that was meant to protect the world from the law of the jungle.
Hojjatollah Faghani,
Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Kingdom of Sweden