Who Is the Terrorist? The United States or Iran

"Terrorist" is perhaps the most powerful label in modern geopolitics. Once attached to a country, organization or individual, it often becomes sufficient to justify sanctions, military intervention and even targeted killings. Yet a fundamental question remains unanswered: Who decides what constitutes terrorism, and are the same standards applied to everyone?

The continuing confrontation between the United States plus Israel and Iran exposes this dilemma. Although, a ceasefire was announced in April, military exchanges have continued, with each side accusing the other of violating the agreement. Amid the exchange of accusations, an uncomfortable reality has emerged—the principles of international law appear to change depending on who is using force.

The United States and Israel have defended targeted strikes against senior Iranian military commanders and political leaders as legitimate acts of self-defense. Their critics argue that these operations amount to political assassinations carried out without judicial process and in violation of international law.

The disagreement is not merely legal; it goes to the heart of how the international community defines legitimate use of force.

Similarly, Iran has maintained that military bases used to launch attacks against its territory become lawful military targets, regardless of where they are located. Arab governments, understandably, fear that such retaliation could draw the entire region into a wider conflict. At the same time, competing media narratives often shape public perception more effectively than independently verified facts.

The latest allegation that Iran seeks to assassinate US President Donald Trump has further intensified tensions. If such a plot exists, it deserves unequivocal condemnation. However, it also raises a difficult question. If the targeted killing of foreign leaders or senior officials can be justified as self-defense when undertaken by one state, on what legal or moral basis should similar conduct be judged differently when attributed to another?

This is not an argument in favor of political assassination by any nation. Rather, it is a call for consistency. International law cannot retain credibility if identical actions are described as "self-defense" when committed by allies and "terrorism" when attributed to their adversaries.

The real question, therefore, is not simply who the terrorist is. The more important question is whether the world is prepared to uphold one universal standard of justice—or continue living with two.