For 45 years, Iran has faced relentless terrorism, including targeted assassinations and coordinated attacks by armed groups, and despite growing casualties and global focus, the country remains entangled in a battle with an evolving threat.
Dr. Seyed Hossein Mousavi Far is an Assistant Professor of International Law at the Faculty of Law and Political Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. With a deep understanding of legal frameworks governing international relations, Dr. Mousavi Far has closely analyzed the persistent wave of terrorism targeting Iran.
He contends that the lack of a clear and universally accepted definition of terrorism in international law hampers effective counterterrorism efforts. According to Dr. Mousavi Far, global powers often exploit the ambiguity surrounding terrorism to advance their political agendas, leaving nations like Iran vulnerable to continuous attacks.
He advocates for a comprehensive approach rooted in legitimate self-defense and international legal principles to combat terrorism and protect national sovereignty.
The following is the full text of his opinion:
For nearly 45 years, Iran has endured the vile scourge of terrorism. Recent years have witnessed a series of heinous acts, including the assassination of General Qassem Soleimani on Iraqi soil, the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, and the brutal killing and wounding of numerous innocent mourners commemorating General Soleimani in Kerman Martyrs Cemetery in 2023. Despite these tragedies, terrorism persistently manifests in its state-sponsored form, continuing to be used selectively as a tool.
Terrorism still lacks a comprehensive and universally accepted definition in international law. It continues to be exploited by global powers to serve their political agendas. While certain acts, such as hijacking and actions against aviation security, have long been criminalized and labeled as terrorism under international law, the concept remains heavily influenced by the political and self-serving agendas of global powers. A general definition, however, could describe terrorism as the violent and armed imposition of the demands of a group, faction, or even a state or organized entity against the interests and well-being of a specific nation or government, resulting in widespread human suffering and devastation.
The September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States marked a turning point in the evolution of terrorism and the global response to it. While shrouded in ambiguity and controversy, these attacks laid the foundation for a new era of counterterrorism, driven by the eradication of al-Qaeda. This era witnessed the emergence of the "preemptive self-defense" doctrine under President George W. Bush. This pattern of development was repeated and intensified in the case of ISIS, further solidifying the global counterterrorism regime within the United Nations framework.
For over four decades, the Iranian nation has endured the devastating impact of terrorism, resulting in the tragic loss of over 23,000 lives. These acts of violence, initiated by groups like the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), aimed to coerce the Islamic Republic into submission to the demands of unlawful armed groups and foreign interference. While Western governments have occasionally designated organizations like the MEK as terrorist entities, their documented history of supporting and employing these groups for destructive activities against Iran raises serious concerns.
The activities of these terrorist groups extend beyond mere acts of violence. Since the 2010s, they have been implicated in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, conducted armed operations within Iranian territory, and collaborated with other regional terrorist groups to undermine Iranian interests. Furthermore, separatist groups operating in western and southeastern Iran have emerged as significant actors in transnational terrorism. Groups such as Jundallah, Jaish ul-Adl, the Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan, and the Arab Struggle Movement for Liberation of Ahvaz (ASMLA), often backed by the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and certain regional governments, have contributed significantly to the rising toll of indiscriminate and brutal terrorist attacks against the Iranian people.
An analysis of the formation and actions of these armed groups reveals a clear objective: to maximize casualties, destruction, and intimidation to create a climate of insecurity, particularly in border regions and peripheral areas of the country.
It's impossible to ignore a crucial question: If even a fraction of the atrocities committed by terrorist organizations like the MEK or Jaish ul-Adl had occurred within the territories of those nations that claim to combat terrorism, how would they have responded? Would they have maintained their silence, continued to encourage these groups, or even offered them support? Or, following the precedent set by their response to al-Qaeda and ISIS, would they have brought the matter before the UN Security Council, issued strong condemnations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, and launched swift military action to not only eliminate the source of terrorism but also pursue and punish any nation harboring or supporting these terrorists?
Ironically, the very nations that portray themselves as victims of terrorism have, at times, failed to even issue verbal condemnations of these attacks. Furthermore, they have consistently obstructed and biased the functioning of the UN Security Council. This discriminatory approach, and in some cases, the active support and arming of terrorist groups targeting Iran, has directly contributed to the escalating number of victims of terrorism.
This discussion focuses on one aspect of the support for terrorism targeting independent nations like Iran. The backing of state-sponsored or organized terrorism, particularly by the Zionist regime, constitutes a separate and significant issue that falls outside the scope of this analysis.
Recent terrorist attacks against Iranians, targeting scientists, military personnel, and civilians alike, primarily originate from Salafi and separatist ideologies operating along the country's borders. These groups, indoctrinated in intelligence and terrorist tactics within neighboring countries and with the active backing of regional powers, infiltrate Iranian territory. After executing their attacks, they often retreat to their countries of origin if they manage to escape.
According to international law, the territory of any nation should not serve as a safe haven for training, planning, or deploying forces with the intent to infiltrate another sovereign nation and engage in armed activities. This principle is rooted in the fundamental UN Resolution 3314, which defines aggression. Furthermore, harboring, training, and equipping terrorists or individuals acting in a coordinated manner to undermine the territorial integrity or national interests of another country constitutes a grave responsibility and must be unequivocally condemned.
Despite repeated warnings from the Iranian government and the mounting toll of terrorism within the country, the governments of the countries harboring these terrorist groups have not only failed to take effective action to prevent and dismantle them but have also, by extension, facilitated the possibility of support from transregional powers for these groups and the promotion of terrorism. This inaction, in itself, constitutes a hostile act and must be considered as tacit support for terrorism.
The myriad terrorist acts perpetrated against the Iranian people over the past 45 years – continuing unabated in new forms and under new guises across the breadth of the nation – transcend the definition of isolated terrorist incidents. They constitute a systematic, organized, and sustained campaign of aggression against the Iranian nation.
In light of this, the principles of legitimate self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, coupled with the broader counterterrorism framework, appear to be the most viable recourse for targeting and suppressing these groups operating within Iran's peripheral regions. This becomes particularly crucial when international bodies succumb to politicization and the plight of Iranian victims of terrorism is systematically ignored.