UN Security Council to meet on Iran as Israel promises further strikes
The United Nations Security Council is set to convene following Israel's strikes on Iran, prompting a request from Iran's Foreign Minister for the meeting. Israel's U.N. envoy declared the military operation would persist until Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities are eliminated. Iran asserts its right to self-defense and vows a decisive response, accusing Israel of aggression and war crimes.
Annalena Baerbock of Germany addresses the United Nations General Assembly after she was elected as president of the 80th session of the body, Monday, June 2, 2025. (AP Photo/Richard Drew)
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
The United Nations Security Council will meet later on Friday over Israel's strikes on Iran as Israel's U.N. envoy said the military operation would continue until Iran's nuclear capabilities and ballistic missile operation were eliminated.Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi requested the council meeting in a letter to the 15-member body, saying Israel "has now crossed every red line, and the international community must not allow these crimes to go unpunished.""Iran reaffirms its inherent right to self-defense as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter and will respond decisively and proportionately to these unlawful and cowardly acts," Araghchi wrote.Article 51 of the U.N. Charter covers the individual or collective right of states to self-defense against armed attack.Israel launched a barrage of strikes across Iran on Friday, saying it had attacked nuclear facilities and missile factories and killed military commanders in what could be a prolonged operation to prevent Tehran building an atomic weapon."We don't know how long it will take," Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon told reporters. "We will continue to act until we will know that we eliminated the threats.""The goals of our operation are very clear - to make sure that Iran will not have nuclear capabilities and to stop the ballistic missile operation," he said. "I will explain to the council... and I expect the Security Council to understand."Araghchi, in his letter to the Security Council, said Israel had not only violated Iran's sovereignty, but also committed " acts of aggression and war crimes."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Iran's man at the table
'It was the U.S. which betrayed diplomacy, but it is Iran which must return to the table!' questioned Iranian Foreign Minister Seyyed Abbas Araghchi in his address to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meeting in Istanbul on June 22, immediately after the U.S. bombed Iran's three nuclear facilities — Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow. Set against Israel and the U.S., his job was to tell the Islamic world how Iran was betrayed by the same powers with whom it was talking. A former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Mr. Araghchi rose through the ranks of Tehran's foreign affairs between 1988 and 2013. Joining the IRGC during the 1979 resolution, Mr. Araghchi was reportedly chosen to be a part of the 'Quds Force', the IRGC's external affairs branch. While Mr. Araghchi has denied his role in the Quds Force, he was inducted into Iran's Foreign Ministry as an expert in international affairs in 1989. He had served as Iran's Ambassador in Finland, Estonia and Japan, before he was made the official spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry. In 2013, Mr. Araghchi was made Iran's chief negotiator to hold talks with the 'P5+1' group (the U.S., China, France, Russia, the U.K and Germany) on its nuclear programme. After 20 months of talks, Mr. Araghchi was successful in getting all parties to agree to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was signed in 2015. Iran was given relief in economic sanctions and was allowed to have a limited nuclear programme under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The U.S., however, unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA in 2018 under Donald Trump. Israel offensive After the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas, Iran's then Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian asserted that Tehran had no prior knowledge of the attack. Israel expanded the conflict by attacking Iran's ally in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and killing IRGC commanders in Syria. Houthis, Iran-backed rebels in Yemen, attacked tankers in the Red Sea. In April 2024, in retaliation for an Israeli strike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Tehran launched ballistic missiles at Israel. On May 19, 2024, a helicopter carrying Amir-Abdollahian and Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi crashed near the Iran-Azerbaijan border and Mr. Araghchi was chosen as the country's top diplomat in the Masoud Pezeshkian government. As Israeli airstrikes killed more Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, Iran launched its second direct attack on Israel in October that year, warning Israel to end its attack across its borders. Israel retaliated with air strikes. After Donald Trump returned to the White House, the U.S. offered dialogue to Iran, which Tehran accepted. On April 13, 2025, Mr. Araghchi held the first round of talks with Trump officials in Oman over the nuclear programme. 'It was a constructive meeting held in a very peaceful and respectful environment,' opined Mr. Araghchi. They met five times. On June 13, two days ahead of the sixth round of talks, Israel launched a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, scientists and military leaders. On June 22, the U.S. joined Israel's war. Mr. Trump later claimed that U.S. strikes 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear programme. He also announced a ceasefire on Israel and Iran, after an Iranian attack at the American base in Qatar on June 23. 'Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged,' said Mr. Araghchi, accusing the U.S. of 'attacking the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of a UN member state'. Leaked U.S. Intelligence reports suggest that the U.S.-Israeli attack set back Iran's nuclear programme by a few months. Despite Mr. Trump's claims that talks with Iran would resume, Mr. Araghchi stated that Iran has no plan to meet with the U.S. over a nuclear deal, adding, 'we know our worth, value our independence, and never allow anyone else to decide our destiny'. As Iran recovers from the war, the challenge before Mr. Araghchi is to strengthen ties with the allies and manage ties with the rivals in a such a way that further external aggression would be prevented at least in the near future.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
What is the legality of U.S. strikes on Iran?
The story so far: On June 22, U.S. President Donald Trump launched military strikes on Iran, joining its ally Israel in efforts to derail Iran's nuclear programme, which both countries claim is approaching weapons production. Iran retaliated the following day with missile attacks on Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of U.S. Central Command. After nearly two weeks of escalating hostilities, Iran and Israel agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. What is a lawful exercise of self-defence? The UN Charter, under Article 2(4), prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in narrowly defined circumstances — a claim of self-defence under Article 51 or with the UN Security Council's (UNSC) authorisation. The restrictive interpretation, grounded in the text of Article 51, permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack that is already under way. A more permissive interpretation allows for self-defence in response to an armed attack that is imminent. This broader interpretation, often referred to as anticipatory self-defence, has been endorsed in several UN-affiliated reports. Notably, the 2004 report of the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change affirmed that 'a threatened State, according to long-established international law, can take military action as long as the threatened attack is imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the action is proportionate'. These criteria are derived from the famous Caroline case, which established that the use of force is lawful only when the need for self-defence is 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation'. Over time, many states have argued that the Caroline standard is too rigid to address contemporary security threats. This has led to attempts to reinterpret and expand the notion of imminence, giving rise to the controversial doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence. Under this doctrine, a state may use force not only in response to an attack that is imminent but also during what is perceived as the 'last window of opportunity' to neutralise a threat posed by an adversary with both the intent and capability to strike. The U.S. has been a leading proponent of this doctrine, invoking it to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. 'Pre-emptive self-defence lacks the requisite state practice and opinio juris to qualify as customary international law. States are generally reluctant to endorse its legality, as the absence of an imminent threat renders the doctrine highly susceptible to misuse,' Prabhash Ranjan, Professor at Jindal Global Law School, told The Hindu. Did Iran pose an 'imminent' threat? The U.S. has not submitted an Article 51 notification to the UNSC declaring its strikes on Iran as self-defence. However, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described them as a precision operation to neutralise 'threats to national interest' and an act of 'collective self-defence' of U.S. forces and its ally, Israel. Tehran has maintained that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, on June 12, the UN nuclear watchdog passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its non-proliferation obligations, while noting that inspectors have been unable to confirm whether the programme is 'exclusively peaceful'. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard initially told Congress that while Iran had stockpiled materials, it was not actively building a nuclear weapon. However, she later warned that Iran could do so 'within weeks,' after President Trump claimed Iran could develop one 'within months.' Dr. Ranjan noted that the criteria for determining an 'imminent threat' remain highly contested, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has never ruled on the legality of anticipatory self-defence or pre-emptive strikes. 'For the U.S. to credibly invoke pre-emptive self-defence, it must present clear evidence of both Iran's intent and capability to strike in the near future. This is a difficult threshold to meet, given that Iran does not yet possess a nuclear weapon,' he said. He added that ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations indicate that diplomatic means were still available. What about collective self-defence? Under Article 51 of the Charter, Israel can call on the assistance of its allies to exercise collective self-defence against an attack. 'Israel's strikes on Iran, framed as pre-emptive action against perceived nuclear threats, are legally suspect. This, in turn, casts doubt on the legitimacy of any claim to collective self-defence,' Dr. Ranjan said. Israel has also sought to justify its military offensive as part of an 'ongoing armed conflict,' citing a history of attacks by groups like Hamas and the Houthis, which it claims act as Iranian proxies. However, to legally sustain this argument, Israel must meet the 'effective control' test set by the ICJ in Nicaragua versus U.S. (1986). This is a high threshold to meet since it requires proof that Iran exercises 'overall control' over these groups beyond merely funding or arming them. What are the implications? Allowing states to invoke pre-emptive self-defence would effectively grant powerful nations the licence to unilaterally use force based on mere conjecture. This would further weaken the already fragile rules-based international order. It is, therefore, crucial to resist expanding legal definitions of what constitutes an imminent threat, particularly when punitive action by the UNSC against permanent members like the U.S. remains unlikely due to their veto power.
Indian Express
5 hours ago
- Indian Express
At least 1.2 million Afghans forced to return from Iran and Pakistan this year, says UN
At least 1.2 million Afghans have been forced to return from Iran and Pakistan this year, the UN refugee agency said Saturday, warning that repatriations on a massive scale have the potential to destabilize the fragile situation in Afghanistan. Iran and Pakistan in 2023 launched separate campaigns to expel foreigners they said were living in the country illegally. They set deadlines and threatened them with deportation if they didn't leave. The two governments deny targeting Afghans, who have fled their homeland to escape war, poverty or Taliban rule. The U.N. high commissioner for refugees said that of the 1.2 million returning Afghans, more than half had come from Iran following a March 20 government deadline for them to leave voluntarily or face expulsion. Iran has deported more than 366,000 Afghans this year, including refugees and people in refugee-like situations, according to the agency. Iran's 12-day war with Israel also has driven departures. The highest number of returns was on June 26, when 36,100 Afghans crossed the border in one day. 'Afghan families are being uprooted once again, arriving with scant belongings, exhausted, hungry, scared about what awaits them in a country many of them have never even set foot in,' said Arafat Jamal, the UNHCR representative in the Afghan capital, Kabul. He said women and girls are particularly worried, as they fear the restrictions on freedom of movement and basic rights such as education and employment. More than half Afghanistan relies on humanitarian assistance. But opposition to Taliban policies and widespread funding cuts are worsening the situation, with aid agencies and nongovernmental organizations cutting back on basic services like education and health care. Iran urges foreigners to leave quickly Iran's attorney general, Mohammad Movahedi Azad, said Saturday that foreigners in the country illegally should leave as soon as possible or face prosecution, state media reported. 'Foreign nationals, especially brothers and sisters from Afghanistan whom we have hosted for years, help us (so) that illegal individuals leave Iran in the shortest period,' the official IRNA news agency quoted Azad as saying. Iranian authorities said in April that out of more than 6 million Afghans, up to 2.5 million were in the country illegally. Iran's top diplomat in Kabul, Ali Reza Bikdeli, visited the Dogharoun border crossing with Afghanistan and promised to facilitate the repatriation of Afghans, state TV reported. Iranians have complained about the increasing presence of Afghans in recent months, with some accusing them of spying for Israel since the outbreak of the war. The Taliban pledge amnesty and helpEarlier this month, on the religious festival of Eid Al-Adha, the Taliban prime minister said all Afghans who fled the country after the collapse of the former Western-backed government were free to return, promising they would be safe. 'Afghans who have left the country should return to their homeland,' Mohammad Hassan Akhund said in a message on X. 'Nobody will harm them. Come back to your ancestral land and live in an atmosphere of peace.' On Saturday, a high-ranking ministerial delegation traveled to western Herat province to meet some of the Afghans returning from Iran. The officials pledged 'swift action to address the urgent needs of the returnees and ensure that essential services and support are provided to ease their reintegration,' according to a statement from the Taliban deputy spokesman Hamdullah Fitrat on X. People get food, temporary accommodation and access to health care upon their return, said Ahmadullah Muttaqi, the director of information and culture in Herat. Everyone receives 2,000 afghanis, or $28.50, in cash and is taken free of charge to their home provinces. 'Upon arrival, they are housed in designated camps until permanent housing is arranged, as residential townships are currently under construction in every province for them,' he told The Associated Press. Meanwhile, Pakistani authorities have set a June 30 deadline for some 1.3 million Afghans to leave. Pakistan aims to expel a total of 3 million Afghans this year.
