Recent remarks by the President of the United States threatening military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran, from the perspective of international law, are not merely a routine political statement but constitute a clear example of a threat to use force against a sovereign state. Such threats directly contradict the fundamental principles of the international legal order.
Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, all states are prohibited from the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This principle is considered one of the most important peremptory norms of international law, and its violation may be regarded—within the framework of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314—as an act of aggression. Therefore, publicly proposing unusual military scenarios against Iran is not merely a political act but a direct breach of one of the most fundamental rules of the international order.
More concerning is the fact that some of these threats have referred to targeting vital infrastructure such as power plants or bridges. Such facilities fall within the category of civilian infrastructure, and attacking them is prohibited under international humanitarian law. Article 52 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions explicitly states that civilian objects shall not be the object of attack. Furthermore, Article 8(2)(b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies the intentional targeting of civilian objects as a war crime. Accordingly, threatening to attack such infrastructure inherently amounts to a threat to commit a war crime.
The seriousness of this issue is further amplified by the fact that these threats have been expressed by the highest official authority of the United States. In international criminal law, official capacity does not grant immunity for the commission of international crimes; rather, if proven, it can form the basis for individual criminal responsibility. Therefore, publicly threatening acts that constitute war crimes under international law may give rise to potential liability before the International Criminal Court or before national courts exercising universal jurisdiction.
In the face of such threats, international law also recognizes specific rights for states. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter acknowledges the inherent right of self-defense in response to an armed attack or an imminent threat thereof. The Islamic Republic of Iran, like any other state, has the right—within the framework of this fundamental principle—to respond decisively and immediately to any aggression or serious threat against its security and territorial integrity.
The Innovators Party believes that threats of war and disregard for the rules of international law endanger not only the security of a single country but also regional and global stability. It is therefore expected that United States officials refrain from continuing such threatening rhetoric before these statements are recorded in history as an example of disregard for international law, since their consequences could be broad and uncontrollable.
Innovators Party of Tehran Province
7 April 2026
