Trump’s claim that he was “very much in charge” of the
Israeli attacks carries serious implications. In the US, suspects are routinely
warned that anything they say can be used against them. Yet some assume this
principle does not apply to those in power. There was a reason the
administration initially distanced itself from the June 13 strikes. Secretary
of State Marco Rubio insisted Israel had acted “unilaterally” and that the US
was not involved. But Trump, seeking to inflate his own role, publicly claimed
responsibility in early November, ignoring the consequences.
Tehran reacted immediately. Foreign Ministry spokesperson
Esmaeil Baghaei said it had always been clear the US participated in what Iran
called Israel’s “crime of aggression.” The 12-day campaign ended on June 24,
leaving more than 1,100 Iranians dead, including military commanders,
scientists and civilians. Key nuclear, military and civilian sites were hit.
Analysts believe the offensive stopped only after Iran’s
retaliatory missile strikes caused significant damage in Israel and hit a US
airbase in Qatar. Without that response, they argue the strikes could have
continued until Iran was destabilized.
Iran quickly escalated the matter to the United Nations. Its
ambassador urged the Security Council to hold Washington accountable. Days
later, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote to UN Secretary-General António
Guterres, calling the strikes violations of the UN Charter, IAEA resolutions
and Security Council Resolution 487.
He said responsibility rests with Israel and the US, “which
– in line with Trump’s admission – directed and controlled the aggression.”
Iran formally demanded full reparation for material and moral damages.
International law expert Dr. Hesamuddin Boroumand said
Trump’s admission amounts to acknowledgment, giving Iran grounds to pursue
compensation through UN mechanisms. He added that Iran could also approach the
UN Human Rights Council, as attacks on civilian sites violated the Geneva
Conventions and the fundamental right to life, creating criminal responsibility
for US officials involved.
A recent precedent exists: in South Africa’s genocide case
at the ICJ, statements by Israeli officials were used as evidence. The ICC
later cited some of those remarks when issuing arrest warrants, including for
Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Trump’s words, offered casually, may now carry weight far
beyond domestic politics — potentially reviving Iran’s case against the United
States on the global stage.

No comments:
Post a Comment