ABNA24 - Iran's representative at the United Nations has emphasized in a letter that the threats by the President of the United States against Iran are contrary to international law.
"Gholamhossein Darzi," the ambassador and representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, in a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the Security Council following the threats by "Donald Trump," the President of the United States, said that these insolent and disgusting claims are not merely political rhetoric but are contrary to international law and the Charter of the United Nations.
The letter states: On September 22, 2026, the President of the United States of America, in his speech at the eighty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly, abusing the very platform that was created to bring nations together for peace and international cooperation, openly threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the founding members of the United Nations, with annihilation.
These hateful and disgusting statements are not vague or unprecedented remarks; rather, they are part of a continuous pattern of open threats against Iran by the president of a state that is a permanent member of the Security Council, to which the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security has fundamentally been entrusted. This recent development is of grave importance and particularly worrying, because the United Nations General Assembly is not a place for issuing threats of annihilation.
The Darzi letter states: The inaction of the international community normalizes such threats and the heinous crimes that aim at the annihilation of a nation, its people, and its civilization. When such threats are made from the podium of the United Nations, the dangers are far greater; because such an action will severely undermine the authority of the Charter and the fundamental responsibility of the United Nations to prevent threats against international peace and security.
The threats by Donald Trump, the President of the United States, against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which were made on September 22, 2026, from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly, go beyond political rhetoric or propaganda positioning. These threats, in which a permanent member of the Security Council openly referred to the annihilation of one of the founding members of the United Nations, constitute a clear and direct violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. A legal analysis of this action reveals multiple dimensions of the violation of international law: The most fundamental rule of international law that has been violated in this regard is paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations. This paragraph explicitly stipulates that all members must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The important point is that this prohibition, contrary to common perception, is not limited merely to the use of force, but also clearly includes the "threat" of the use of force.
Trump's threat to annihilate Iran is a clear and indisputable example of an open threat against the territorial integrity and political independence of a member state. The International Court of Justice in the case of "Nicaragua v. United States" also emphasized on this basis that the obligation of states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states is a fundamental and binding principle.
What adds to the gravity of this clear violation and disregard for international law is the position and podium from which this threat was made. The United Nations General Assembly is the foremost global body for bringing nations together to achieve peace, international cooperation, and the development of friendly relations. Using this position to openly issue a threat of annihilation against another state is not only a violation of the fundamental goals and principles of the Charter, but is also assessed as an action to undermine the authority of the entire United Nations system and its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Iran's representative at the United Nations has rightly reminded that the General Assembly is not a place for issuing threats of annihilation, and the inaction of the international community in the face of such an action leads to the normalization of threats and heinous crimes against a nation and its civilization.
These threats, in addition to violating the Charter of the United Nations, also trample upon the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. United Nations experts and human rights bodies, including Amnesty International, have emphasized that threats of "complete annihilation" and "certain death" for areas and groups of people are not only a clear violation of the right to life, but can also be considered an example of threats to commit genocide and war crimes. International humanitarian law strictly prohibits any direct attack against civilians and civilian objects, and the threat of widespread annihilation of civilians violates the principles of distinction and proportionality. Professors of international law have also considered these statements a sign of clear disregard for the rules governing armed conflicts and a tendency toward widespread military actions that will have catastrophic consequences for civilians.
In such conditions, the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, reserves its inherent and inviolable right to legitimate self-defense against any aggression. This right is a legal and legitimate response to illegal threats and entails the international responsibility of the U.S. government and the individual criminal responsibility of its officials, including the president. Threatening the annihilation of a nation is not merely a statement, but amounts to accepting responsibility for international crimes and violating the peremptory norms of international law. Based on international law, the U.S. government is obligated to compensate for the damages inflicted on Iran and its people, and the responsible officials must be held accountable for these actions.
In conclusion, it must be said that the silence and inaction of the international community in the face of these threats will bring dangerous consequences. The normalization of threats to annihilate a member state leads to further weakening of the foundations of international law and increased instability in the international system. The global community, especially the members of the Security Council, has a responsibility to prevent such actions from becoming a normal practice by explicitly condemning these threats and taking necessary measures. Trump's threat against Iran is a serious test for the credibility and effectiveness of international law and the commitment of the global community to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
/129
Your Comment