By HeadlinesXtra News Desk | November 13, 2026
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has accused the United States and Israel of violating international law through their military campaign against Iran, warning that the credibility of the international legal order is at stake if powerful countries are allowed to use force without meaningful accountability.
In an opinion piece published by Japanese media, Araghchi argued that the conflict raises a fundamental question about whether international law applies equally to all states or whether its rules can be disregarded by countries with sufficient military and political influence. He presented the war as a challenge not only to Iran’s sovereignty but also to the principles governing relations between nations.
Araghchi’s central argument is that the prohibition on the use of force, enshrined in the United Nations Charter, must apply consistently. He warned that selective enforcement would weaken confidence in international institutions and encourage governments to rely increasingly on military power rather than diplomacy and established legal processes.
Araghchi Says International Law Is At A Critical Test
The Iranian foreign minister’s argument centres on the UN Charter’s restriction on the threat or use of force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence. The Charter recognises limited exceptions, including individual or collective self-defence following an armed attack and military action authorised by the UN Security Council.
Araghchi maintains that the US-Israeli military action against Iran does not meet the legal requirements for a lawful use of force. Tehran has repeatedly described the strikes as aggression and says its military response is an exercise of its right to self-defence. Washington and Israel have advanced security justifications for their actions, making the legal basis and factual circumstances central to the international debate.
The distinction matters because a government’s description of an operation as preventive or defensive does not, by itself, settle its legality. International law experts assess issues including whether an armed attack occurred or was imminent, whether force was necessary and proportionate, and whether the Security Council authorised the operation.
Legal Experts Have Raised Questions About The Initial Strikes
The debate is not limited to Iranian officials. In an analysis published by The Guardian, international law specialists examined the legality of the initial US and Israeli attacks. The report said the experts it consulted broadly considered the opening strikes unlawful, while also explaining the legal arguments surrounding self-defence and the threshold of an imminent threat.
A separate interview published by Kobe University featured international law scholar Hayashi arguing that the attacks violated the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force. The scholar said the distinction between an actual armed attack, an imminent attack and a more general future threat is important when assessing a claim of self-defence.
Those assessments represent expert legal analysis, not a final judgment by an international court. The legality of particular military operations can depend on evidence and circumstances that may not be publicly available, and the parties to the conflict continue to dispute the facts and legal justifications.
Japan’s Diplomatic Position Adds Another Dimension
Araghchi’s decision to make his case through Japanese media gives the argument a diplomatic audience beyond Iran’s traditional partners. Japan maintains a close security alliance with the United States while also having long-standing diplomatic and economic interests in the Middle East, including energy security and safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
A March analysis by Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies described Japan’s challenge as balancing its alliance with Washington with its relations with Tehran. It noted that Tokyo had expressed concern about the regional escalation, opposed Iran’s attacks on Gulf states and shipping, and continued to emphasise diplomacy over a military solution.
Japan’s position illustrates the difficulty facing countries that support the international rules-based system but also depend on strategic relationships with major powers. Publicly challenging a close ally can carry diplomatic costs, while remaining silent about alleged violations can raise questions about consistency.
The Wider Question Of Accountability
Araghchi’s warning touches on a broader concern in international relations: the authority of international law depends not only on written rules but also on whether states and institutions apply them consistently. When powerful countries are perceived to face fewer consequences, smaller states may lose confidence in the system’s ability to protect sovereignty and resolve disputes peacefully.
However, the debate also requires scrutiny of Iran’s own conduct. Iran’s claim to self-defence does not remove its obligations under international humanitarian law. All parties to an armed conflict must distinguish between civilians and combatants, avoid indiscriminate attacks and take precautions to protect civilian life. Attacks directed at civilians are prohibited regardless of which side carries them out.
The United Nations Charter and international humanitarian law therefore impose obligations on every party, not only on the governments accused of initiating the conflict. Accountability must be based on evidence and legal standards rather than political alignment.
A Test For The International System
Araghchi’s intervention is an attempt to frame the conflict as a test of the international system itself. His argument is that if the prohibition on aggression is weakened whenever a powerful state invokes national security, the legal framework established after the Second World War risks losing its practical authority.
The challenge for the international community is to examine the conduct of all parties through the same legal standards, support credible investigations and preserve diplomatic channels capable of preventing further escalation. Whether Araghchi’s warning translates into wider diplomatic pressure will depend on how governments, international institutions and legal bodies respond to the competing claims.
Sources And Further Reading: The Guardian – Legal analysis of the US and Israeli attacks on Iran | Kobe University – International law and the attacks on Iran | RSIS – Japan’s balancing act in the Iran war | United Nations – Full text of the UN Charter.