TEHRAN – “Everything you say can and will be used against you in court.” That’s the warning U.S. police give when arresting criminal suspects. The repetition of this phrase in American movies and television has instilled in most people the concept that their words can be used against them. However, some people in the United States seem to believe that words lose their persuasive power when spoken by someone in a position of power.
There is a reason why the US government insisted it was not involved in Israel’s June 13 attack on Iran. “Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in any attack against Iran,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement hours after the attack. But when President Donald Trump smugly told White House reporters in early November that he was “very much responsible” for the Israeli attack, he seemed more intent on boosting his ego than weighing the consequences of his words.
The statement prompted an almost immediate reaction from Tehran. Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghai said: “It was clear from the beginning that the United States was fully participating in Israel’s crime of aggression against the Iranian state.”
The US-Israel war against Iran ended on June 24 after 12 days of attacks. Nuclear, civilian, and military infrastructure was targeted across Iranian territory, and more than 1,100 Iranians were killed, including commanders, nuclear scientists, and civilians. Analysts believe that the US and Israel stopped Iranian missile attacks only after they caused mass destruction in the occupied territories and attacked a US air base in Qatar. Otherwise, they say, the attacks likely would have continued until the government was overthrown, domestic turmoil intensified, and the country descended into prolonged political and security turmoil.
Just days after Baghai’s post about X, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations called on the Security Council in a letter to take action and hold Americans accountable. This was followed by another letter delivered this Thursday to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the US and Israeli attacks, pointing out that they violate international law.
“This attack violated multiple international legal frameworks, including Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, IAEA resolutions, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 487 (1981),” Araghchi wrote. “Responsibility for these violations lies not only with the Zionist regime, but also with the United States, which, consistent with President Trump’s confession, directed and controlled the Israeli invasion.”
Mr. Araguchi’s letter formally called on the U.S. government to provide full compensation for the damages caused, including both material and moral compensation, as required by established international law.
According to international law expert and scholar Dr. Hesamuddin Bormand, Iran has a clear right to seek reparations with the approval of the US president, which constitutes international recognition.
“In this connection, Iran should utilize international legal mechanisms, such as filing a complaint with the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council. This process has already been initiated by Iran’s Permanent Representative to the UN and now by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.”
The expert added that Iran may consider filing a complaint with the UN Human Rights Council, as numerous civilian facilities were targeted during the 12-day invasion, including residential areas, media centres, prisons and public buildings, in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. “Tragically, 1,100 of our fellow citizens lost their lives. This is a gross violation of one of the most fundamental human rights, the ‘right to life.’ This situation creates international criminal liability for the commanders and officials involved in the U.S. actions,” Dr. Borrowman said.
The most recent high-profile case in which officials’ own statements were used against them in court occurred last year in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In a packed courtroom in The Hague, South Africa argued that statements by Israeli leaders and lawmakers conveyed genocidal intent. The International Criminal Court (ICC) cited some of these statements when issuing arrest warrants for two Israeli figures, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Army Minister Yoav Gallant, although the ICJ has not yet issued a final ruling.