By Thierry Meyssan
Voltairenet.org
April 8, 2026
The war waged by Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom against Iran has called into question international law. Even the Security Council had forgotten its own definition of aggression. It ruled against itself. There has never been a precedent for this situation. All UN member states must now choose between international law and the alliance system devised by the United States.
The Israeli-American-British war [1] against Iran profoundly impacted the United Nations and revolutionized the way international law was approached. Until then, everyone believed that this law was based solely on respect for one's signature and the right of peoples to self-determination. However, over time, everyone had also become accustomed to the idea that Israel and the United States would never be considered outside the law.
Although he invoked "collective self-defense" by Israel (sic), this point was swept aside by the astonishing candor of US President Donald Trump, who stated that Iran did not threaten his country [2]. Until now, Washington had lied shamelessly to maintain the illusion that it respected international law. We remember the lies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama regarding the 9/11 attacks, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the Libyan and Syrian massacres, and the wars that followed.
Benjamin Netanyahu simply resorted to his thirty-year-old rhetoric about "the head of the octopus"-that is, Iran-to explain his influence. He could think of nothing better than to refer to Iranian slogans: "Death to the Zionist entity!" and "Death to the United States!" implying that Iran wanted to kill all Israelis and all Americans. However, chanting "Death to the Zionist entity!" has never meant hoping for the death of the State of Israel and its people, but simply challenging the self-proclamation of this state, without the approval of the United Nations, and contrary to the initial plan for a binational state. As for the cry of "Death to the United States!", it signifies that Iran is challenging the legitimacy of a state founded on the massacre of millions of indigenous people and the enslavement of millions of Black Africans.
One might have expected every UN member to declare this war illegal, an "aggression" as defined by the Charter. Not so ! No one said it-except North Korea-though they all thought it. While this attitude is understandable, given the military might of the United States-each member preferring to avoid acknowledging this truth-it is clear that this collective cowardice will have consequences.
The most important point lies elsewhere: not only does this war constitute, in itself, an "aggression" and call into question the signatures of Tel Aviv and Washington, but it is being waged in a "barbaric" manner, in the sense defined by the Hague Conference (1899). Benjamin Netanyahu has openly admitted to assassinating, one by one, all the religious, military, and political leaders of the man he considers his enemy. These are crimes that Donald Trump has also repeated and endorsed.
Until now, Westerners considered assassinating leaders immoral and counterproductive. Israel and the United States are perfectly aware that it is counterproductive, but don't care whether it's moral or not [3]. For seventy-eight years, Israel has assassinated Palestinian leaders. It has orphaned this people and has no choice but to attack them if it no longer has anyone to negotiate with.
In the process, Israel razed the home of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and assassinated him. This is exactly as if it had bombed the Vatican and assassinated Pope Leo XIV because he-and all his predecessors-opposed the creation of a Jewish Empire, to use the expression of Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), even if he accepted that Israel and Palestine should be a refuge for Jews from all over the world, to use the expression of Theodor Herzl (1860-1904).
It should therefore come as no surprise that terrorist movements are forming today, such as Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamia (HAYI) (Islamic Movement of the Right-Hand People), which are planting bombs in Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and perhaps France. Those Shiites who have accepted the Velayat-e faqih (Islamic jurist doctrine) feel compelled to avenge their spiritual master.
As if that weren't enough, Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump are now targeting Iranian civilians [4] whom they were calling on yesterday to "overthrow their regime" (sic). Alas ! The Iranians, who were not convinced by Western propaganda that the Revolutionary Guards had massacred 40,000 of their compatriots, joined the Revolutionary Guards en masse to keep the aggressors at bay.
These cruel operations began with the bombing of Tehran's hydrocarbon stocks, which released "sulfur and nitrogen oxides", causing acid rain [5].
Everyone, having clearly understood that Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump are carrying out an illegal "aggression" against Iran and behaving like barbarians, assassinating leaders and deliberately targeting civilians, could realize that Iran was fully responding to the treatment it was receiving.
This is the great discovery of this war: international law provides that attacked states can take action against their aggressor not only on their own territory, but also against military bases that participate in the aggression from abroad, and finally against third-party states that host these bases [6]. Never before, since the creation of the United Nations, had an attacked state attacked its aggressor(s) on the territory of a third-party state. The whole world had forgotten this response, particularly effective in the era of economic globalization [7].
The members of the Security Council themselves had forgotten the "definition of aggression," adopted unanimously without a vote on December 14, 1974. So much so that, on March 11, 2026, they adopted Resolution 2817, which "condemns in the strongest terms the unacceptable attacks perpetrated by the Islamic Republic of Iran" against the six Gulf States and Jordan. Without immediately realizing it, they voted on a text contrary to all their signatures and therefore to international law.
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar were thrust into this war against their will. These seven states-like the Security Council-initially reacted without understanding. They filed a complaint with the Security Council. Then, through a series of letters, they were forced to admit that Iran was within its rights and that the Council had overlooked this. They all signed United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX) (December 14, 1974). Their protests became less vehement, more vague. All had agreed to host US military bases to ensure their security, and all found themselves trapped by the presence of these bases.
There are several ways to react to this contradiction, either by declaring international law inappropriate, but who will protect them in the future ? Or by declaring that the United States is doing whatever it wants and putting them in danger, but how can they free themselves from their precious patron?
At the time of writing, more than 80 letters have been exchanged at the Security Council, but none of these seven states has resolved this dilemma: international law or foreign military bases. A choice must be made.
No more able than the others to reconcile the irreconcilable, the Sultanate of Oman, for its part, "invites the Security Council to exercise its responsibilities by carrying out a comprehensive and impartial assessment of the root causes of this crisis so that these can be addressed at the root and not just on the surface." [8].
-
[1 ] " Iran denounces its three aggressors ", by Amir Saeid Iravani, Voltaire Network, March 9, 2026.
[2 ] " Justification of the US war against Iran " (reference: UN S/2026/161), by Michael G. Waltz, Voltaire Network, March 10, 2026.
[3 ] " Iran's Complaint Against Targeted Killings by Israel and the United States " (reference: UN S/2026/230), by Amir Saeid Iravani, Voltaire Network, March 26, 2026.
[4 ] " Iran's Complaint Against US Threats Toward Civilians " (reference: UN S/2026/215), by Amir Saeid Iravani, Voltaire Network, March 22, 2026.
[5 ] " Iran's Complaint Against Acid Rain Caused by Israeli-US Aggression " (reference: UN S/2026/149), by Shina Ansari, Voltaire Network, March 9, 2026.
[6 ] " United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX): Definition of Aggression ", Voltaire Network, December 14, 1974.
[7 ] " Iran recalls the international definition of aggression ", by Amir Saeid Iravani, Voltaire Network, March 3, 2026.
[8 ] " Oman requests the Security Council to comprehensively assess the situation " (reference: UN S/2026/210), by Omar Said Omar Al Kathiri, Voltaire Network, March 19, 2026.
This article was originally published on Voltairenet.org.
You may freely reproduce articles from the Voltaire Network provided you cite the source and do not modify them or use them for commercial purposes (CC BY-NC-ND license).