TEHRAN – Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has warned that the U.S.-Israeli military aggression against Iran strikes at the foundation of the post-war international legal order, declaring that if power is allowed to prevail over law, “Iran will not be the only casualty.”
In an opinion piece published by Japan’s Kyodo News, titled “The UN Charter Under Fire: Why U.S. Attacks on Iran Violate International Law,” Araghchi said the war on Iran is not a bilateral dispute but a test of whether the prohibition on the use of force retains any meaning when violated by a powerful state.
“If states were free to attack one another based on their own assessments of possible future threats, what would be left of the international legal order?” Araghchi wrote. 
“This question goes well beyond the political dispute between Iran and the United States. It concerns one of the fundamental principles on which the international order established after the Second World War rests: the use of force is governed by law, and no state, however powerful, is entitled to place its own judgment above binding rules of international law.”
Araghchi said the U.S. strikes lacked Security Council authorization and violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. 
He noted that the International Court of Justice affirms this prohibition as a rule of customary international law in its 1986 Nicaragua judgment.
He rejected any invocation of self-defense under Article 51, which permits force only in response to an armed attack. 
“To treat a potential future threat as grounds for military action would be to accept preventive war based on the unilateral judgment of individual states,” Araghchi wrote. 
“Such an interpretation would seriously undermine, if not altogether empty, the prohibition on the use of force of its practical meaning.”
The foreign minister also cited a March 6, 2026 statement by the president of the American Branch of the International Law Association, who described the attack on Iran as unlawful and stressed that speculative threats cannot justify military force.
Beyond the jus ad bellum question, Araghchi pointed to attacks on schools, sports stadiums, civilian infrastructure and Iranian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards, saying these raise separate concerns under international humanitarian law. 
Parties to an armed conflict, he wrote, must distinguish between military targets and civilians, refrain from disproportionate attacks, and take all feasible precautions to minimize harm.
Citing UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 on the Definition of Aggression, Araghchi said the U.S. attack constituted an internationally wrongful act for which Washington bears responsibility. 
Under the law of state responsibility, he wrote, the United States must cease the wrongful conduct, offer assurances of non-repetition, and make full reparation for the injury caused. 
“Political or security considerations cannot, by themselves, relieve the United States of the legal consequences of its actions,” he wrote.
Araghchi reaffirmed that Iran retains the right of self-defense under Article 51 in response to an armed attack, to be exercised subject to the conditions and limitations imposed by international law.
“If military strength is allowed to take precedence over legal obligations, and states responsible for aggression can escape accountability, no country’s security can be taken for granted,” Araghchi warned. 
“If power is permitted to prevail over law, Iran will not be the only casualty. The foundations of the international legal order, and the authority of the UN Charter itself, will also be at risk.”