March 4, 2026
TEHRAN- In an exclusive interview with Tehran Times, Professor Alfred de Zayas of the Geneva School of Diplomacy, a renowned international law expert and former UN Independent Expert on International Order, delivers a sobering legal and moral appraisal of the unprecedented joint U.S.-Israeli war against Iran on February 28, an operation that has shaken the Middle East and reverberated across the world.
Against the backdrop of widespread airstrikes on strategic and civilian targets in Tehran and other cities that have sparked fierce retaliation and regional escalation, de Zayas examines the attack’s conformity with international law, its humanitarian toll, and the broader implications for global peace and justice.
1. The U.S.-Israeli war on Iran happened hours after Oman announced a “significant progress” in U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Geneva. Does launching military action during active diplomacy violate the UN Charter’s obligation to pursue peaceful settlement of disputes?
The aggression violates all international norms on diplomacy, the principle of good faith, which constitutes a cornerstone of international law and civilization, more specifically, the purposes and principles of the UN laid down in articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter. In particular, Article 2(3) was breached, which stipulates: All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. Article 2(4) which stipulates: All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, and constitutes the “crime of aggression” within the meaning of Article 5 of the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court and the Kampala Definition of 2010. It also constitutes the crime of “Aggression” pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 3314. The Nürnberg Principles, adopted by the General Assembly on the basis of a draft presented by the UN International Law Commission in 1950, prohibits what the U.S. and Israel have done. Articles 6a, 6b and 6c of the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, the Statute of the International Military Tribunal for Nuremberg, should be applied. (https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/7_1_1950.pdf )
More generally, it is an act of perfidy, which is prohibited in the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
2. Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and certain senior military officials were assassinated in the initial strikes. Your opinion please in terms of international law.
Under customary international law and numerous United Nations treaties, Heads of State and other senior officials are entitled to immunity, they cannot be targets of extra-judicial executions. Moreover, bearing in mind that there has been no declaration of war (contrary to the requirements of the U.S. constitution) and that the “use of force” by the United States and Israel constitutes international crimes under the relevant UN rules and definitions, it is not a question of a “threshold” of legality/illegality. The actions by the U.S. and Israel are an abomination, an open revolt against international law and morals, a revolt against civilization itself. If this had been a declared war (albeit an illegal war by U.S. and Israel), the Hague and Geneva Conventions would have to be enforced. Art. 37 of the 1977 Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions defines the crime of Perfidy “1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy: a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender…”
3.Iranian sources say at least 1040 Iranians, mostly civilians, have been killed so far. What legal obligations do attacking states have when civilian casualties occur in densely populated urban centers like Tehran?
The 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 and the First Additional Protocol of 1977 are designed to protect civilians in time of war. The two key principles of international humanitarian law — the principle of distinction between combatants and noncombatants, and the principle of proportionality have been grossly violated. These violations generate both civil and penal liability. Accordingly, the responsible politicians and military should be indicted by the International Criminal Court for violations of articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Statute of Rome. The International Court of Justice should, in an advisory opinion, set an appropriate level of reparation to Iran and compensation to the victims.
4. The U.S. and Israel cited “imminent threat” justification. Given the ICJ’s nuclear weapons advisory opinions, can preventive strikes ever satisfy Article 51’s “armed attack” requirement?
No. There is no right to “preventive self-defense” — not under article 51 of the UN Charter, nor under any provision of international law. On the contrary, there is an absolute obligation to negotiate, and that is precisely what was happening. Negotiations do not mean “take it or leave it”, nor do they mean “surrender”. Negotiation means compromise, quid pro quo. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits not only the use of force without UN approval, but also the threat of the use of force. Everything that the U.S. and Israel were doing before the attacks on Iran already violated Art. 2(4) of the Charter, that was the case in June 2025 and in March 2026. The non-existence of a right of preemptive self-defense was much discussed in 2003 when U.S. President George W. Bush and the “coalition of the willing” attacked Iraq, an invasion and bombardment that occurred on the false pretext of alleged Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction”. The issue was settled in international law, and the then UN Secretary General clearly stated that the war on Iraq was an “illegal war”. Alas, no one was held accountable for the multiple violations of the UN Charter and of Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Statute of Rome. This did NOT make the 2003 invasion, occupation and spoliation of Iraq legal. The principle ex injuria non oritur jus clearly tells us that out of a violation of law no new rights can emerge. The tragic situation only confirms that the UN still does not have effective enforcement mechanisms, and that the international community is complicit, because we have tolerated the cancerous growth of a “culture of impunity”. Art. 51 of the UN Charter stipulates: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” This article applies ONLY after “an armed attack” has occurred. That means that Iran has the right of individual and collective self-defence. The U.S. and Israel have no such right. But even when Article 51 is invoked, it does not legitimize all-out war. The responsibility lies with the UN Security Council. Thus, Article 51 only allows a state to repulse an attack, is temporary, and it does not liberate that state from the limitations of international humanitarian law.
5. Secretary-General Guterres called the strikes a “squandered chance for diplomacy”. When the Security Council is paralyzed, what concrete legal mechanisms can uphold the Charter principles against unilateral force?
Secretary-General should have called the strikes unlawful acts of aggression, gross violations of the UN Charter, a frontal attack on international law and civilization. Guterres uses euphemisms and lacks the courage to call a spade a spade. To this day he has failed to call the genocide in Gaza a genocide. The Security Council has been paralyzed by the U.S. misuse and abuse of the veto power to shield Israel from responsibility and sanctions. The U.S., of course, would shield itself from any resolution against the U.S. itself. The General Assembly can and should take its responsibilities under articles 10-12 of the Charter and adopt a “Uniting for Peace” resolution, giving it a broad mandate to act to promote international peace and security and to adopt pertinent resolutions, e.g. to impose sanctions on the U.S. and Israel. The GA has adopted such resolutions in the past in connection with the wars in Korea, Egypt/Israel and the Congo. The General Assembly can and should adopt a resolution under Article 6 of the Charter to expel Israel from membership. Art. 6 stipulates: A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. Even if the U.S. would block Israel’s expulsion in the Security Council, the adoption of such a resolution by the General Assembly would have enormous value and would encourage states to BDS — boycott, divest, sanction — both Israel and the United States. Rhetoric is not going to solve the problems created by the unlawful U.S. and Israeli actions. Only massive economic consequences. Thus all BRICS countries, all members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, all members of the Non-Aligned Movement, all members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization should BDS the U.S. and Israel. China should sell its trillion dollars worth of U.S. Treasury Bonds. Other countries should similarly sell their U.S. Bonds. Everyone should divest from U.S. and Israeli companies. NO country should be buying airplanes from the U.S. — no more F-16 or F-35 no more Boeing 737, no more products from Lockheed/Martin, Raytheon, General Motors, General Electric, Caterpillar, etc. And no one should be selling “rare earths” to the U.S. or Israel, no more lithium, no more lanthanides, sandium[Ps1] or yttrium. The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran is not just against Iran — it is against the entire planet. It is an imperialistic and neo-colonial war. The Global Majority must act now or suffer the consequences later.
Link to original article: https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/524451/US-Israeli-military-action-amid-nuclear-talks-is-act-of-perfidy
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
