Following Israel's widespread attacks on non-military facilities and civilians in Iran in June 2025, serious questions have been raised about the silence of international legal bodies regarding them. These attacks, which involved targeting nuclear centers, residential areas, and even a session of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, are reminiscent of patterns previously condemned as violations of international humanitarian law in cases of state terrorism—such as the US attack on Afghan civilians under the title "war on terror" or the targeted assassination of scientists by Mossad.Can the trace of the same double standards be found in this event that has prevented the Security Council from issuing a resolution against Israel due to the US veto? In Habilian's conversation with Dr. Yaser Shakeri, a university faculty member, we have tried to answer this and similar questions.
1. Can Israel's attack on Iranian civilians and non-military facilities be considered an example of "state terrorism"?
In international law, "state terrorism" has not been explicitly defined in any international convention, but it can be defined as the intentional use of illegal violence by a state against civilians or non-military infrastructure with the aim of creating fear or political pressure. According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, any use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state is prohibited, except in cases of self-defense (Article 51) or with the authorization of the Security Council. Israel's attacks on Iran's non-military facilities, such as energy or media infrastructure, and targeting civilians, violate the principle of distinction enshrined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), which prohibits attacks on civilians. UN reports indicate that Israel's attacks in June 2025 on Iran's nuclear facilities, military infrastructure, and residential areas, which led to the killing of approximately 224 people (preliminary casualty figures), violate the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. These actions can be regarded as "state terrorism" because their aim was to create terror and undermine Iran's sovereignty, and they were carried out without authorization from the Security Council or the existence of an imminent armed attack from Iran (as a condition for preemptive self-defense). Furthermore, the attack on nuclear facilities, according to the resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), due to the risk of radioactive release and violation of nuclear safety, is a serious breach of international law. However, Israel claims that these attacks were legitimate to prevent a nuclear threat from Iran, but the lack of credible evidence from the IAEA about Iran's weapons program weakens this justification.
2. How does the targeted assassination of nuclear scientists like Fereydoun Abbasi conflict with international laws? Do these actions fall under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court?
The targeted assassination of civilian scientists, like Fereydoun Abbasi, is a clear violation of international humanitarian law and human rights. According to Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), civilians are immune from attack unless they directly participate in hostilities. Nuclear scientists engaged in peaceful scientific or research activities are considered civilians, and targeting them violates the principle of distinction. Furthermore, Article 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) emphasizes the protection of civilians in times of armed conflict. Targeted assassination can also be an example of "willful killing" under Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute of the ICC, which is classified as a war crime. If these assassinations occurred within the framework of an international armed conflict, Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute, which prohibits intentional attacks on civilians, also applies. UN reports confirm that Israel's attacks in June 2025 included extrajudicial killings of Iranian civilian scientists, which is a clear violation of international law. Israel may claim that these individuals were a potential threat due to their role in Iran's nuclear program, but the lack of credible evidence about weapons-related activities and the absence of an active conflict situation between Iran and Israel invalidate this justification from a legal perspective. Also, these actions could violate the 1971 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons (such as scientists in governmental roles).
3. Can the Zionist regime's use of advanced drones in recent attacks be seen as indicative of a new pattern of "cyber-physical terrorism"? What new threats does this pattern pose to international law?
The combined use of advanced drones and cyber operations by Israel in the June 2025 attacks on Iran can be considered an emerging pattern of "cyber-physical terrorism." This pattern involves leveraging cyber technologies for information gathering, disrupting defense systems or infrastructure, and then executing precise physical attacks with drones to eliminate human targets or destroy infrastructure. This approach violates principles of international law, including Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (prohibition of the use of force) and Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (protection of civilian objects), especially when civilian targets such as media or nuclear facilities are attacked. The new threats of this pattern to international law include:
• Ambiguity in attribution: Cyber-physical operations, due to technical complexity and the possibility of deniability, make legal identification and accountability difficult.
• Violation of sovereignty: Cyber attacks that disrupt a country's defense systems constitute a violation of cyber sovereignty, which has not yet been fully regulated in international law.
• Risk of conflict escalation: This pattern, due to its high precision and widespread effects, can lead to uncontrollable escalation of conflicts.
• Regulatory challenges: The lack of specific international conventions to regulate cyber-physical attacks creates a legal vacuum that increases the potential for abuse.
Recent reports indicate that Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities using coordinated drones and cyber operations carried risks such as radioactive release and violation of nuclear safety, which breaches IAEA commitments and the Nuclear Safety Convention. This pattern requires the development of new international laws to regulate the use of combined technologies in conflicts.
4. Why has the UN Security Council been unable to take a decisive stance on these attacks? Does the US veto indicate a flaw in the international system?
The inability of the UN Security Council to take a decisive stance against Israel's attacks on Iran in June 2025 is mainly due to the use of the veto power by the United States, as one of the five permanent members of the Council. According to Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on non-procedural matters require the concurring votes of all permanent members (the US, Russia, China, Britain, France). The US has consistently provided diplomatic support to Israel and, on numerous occasions, such as a proposed ceasefire resolution in Gaza in June 2025, has used its veto. The US representative at the Security Council emergency session on June 13, 2025, stated that the US does not support Israel's attacks but considers them justifiable within the framework of self-defense, which prevented a clear condemnation of these actions. This situation indicates a structural flaw in the international system, as the veto mechanism allows for the application of double standards and weakens the enforcement of international justice. This flaw is particularly evident in cases where the geopolitical interests of permanent members, such as US support for Israel, prevent the Security Council from acting to maintain international peace and security. UN experts and legal analysts, such as Marko Milanovic, see these vetoes as a sign of the erosion of the rules-based international order. Suggestions such as using the "Uniting for Peace" resolution by the UN General Assembly to bypass the veto have been raised, but this mechanism has also been less effective due to political limitations.
Source: Farhikhtegan Newspaper