South African expert criticises Israeli missile strikes on Iran as unjustified
Image: AFP
The Israeli missile attack on Iran was unprovoked because the latter had not made any moves to initiate the attack, said South Africa's expert on international affairs, Nazreen Shaik.
Shaik weighed in following a barrage of attacks on the Iranian territory in the early hours of Friday in Tehran, Iran's capital, killing Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major-General Hossein Salami and other senior military officials, as well as nuclear scientists.
South Africa's Department of International Relations and Cooperation had on Friday condemned the Israeli action.
'These actions raise serious concerns under international law, including the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the protection of civilians enshrined in the UN Charter and international humanitarian law,' read the statement.
Iran had already retaliated by firing missiles at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
The Israeli strikes targeted Iran's nuclear and military sites. Both the Israeli and the United States of America governments accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons, which might be a threat to their enemy countries.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad Loading
Iran, through its embassy in Pretoria, rejected the allegation of nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear programme 'is strictly peaceful and operates under full compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which the Islamic Republic of Iran is a long-standing and committed member'.
Shaik said the Israeli attack was not provoked, and the matter should have been resolved through the rules of engagement, which are governed by international laws.
'Only if it's known that soldiers from country B are on the border and are about to attack, and they have gained that by military or security intelligence, only then would country A attack country B.
'But in the situation, this is what we call in international law a belligerent attack, where a country takes a unilateral state of action by itself, you decide that somebody poses a threat to you, therefore you will now attack that country,' said Shaik.
She said such actions were not acceptable in the norms and standards of international warfare.
She stated that the attack occurred while the US was holding talks with Iran regarding the issue of the nuclear facility, and 'the sunset clause, which instructs Iran to denuclearise, is due to take effect in 2029'.
Both Israel and the US opposed the terms of the clause as they felt that waiting for 2029 was too long.
'Israel seems to be acting on behalf of the US, pushing Iran to do something (denuclearise), which is the international bullying at the very least.
'No country should ever be allowed to attack another country without being prompted to do so,' said Shaik.
She said those who were concerned about Iran's nuclear programme should have approached the United Nations and the Security Council to intervene.
She said Israel and the US avoided the intervention of the Security Council because of Russia, which was assisted by Iran in the attack on Ukraine, and was a member of the Security Council.
'If the US approached the Security Council to cast the vote (on Iran's nuclear programme), Russia would veto those who are against Iran because Iran stood by it during the attack against Ukraine.'
She said even if Iran had reported Israel to the Security Council instead of retaliating, nothing would have been done as the US and Russia would not agree with each other, while the council's decision should be unanimous.
She feared that since Iran had already retaliated by firing missiles at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, the conflict might escalate.
'If Iran retaliates, the US is going to back Israel, and the US will send forces to Israel,' said Shaik.
She believed that Russia would not make a quick move to back Iran, 'but Russia would be supporting Iran in principle'.
Responding to this reporter's questions, an official from the Iranian embassy in Pretoria, who declined to give his name, said his country was committed to cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) obligations.
'All of Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities are under the Agency's verification and supervision, and no deviation toward weapon production has ever been reported.
'Furthermore, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic has issued a binding religious decree (fatwa) that clearly prohibits the development or use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances,' said the official.
He said Israeli strikes also deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure and residential areas in Tehran and other cities.
'Iran holds the Zionist regime fully responsible for this aggression, and also places direct responsibility on the United States and its allies, who enabled, coordinated, and politically supported this act.
'Without the approval and logistical backing of the US government, such a reckless attack could not have taken place.
'Iran reserves the full right to defend itself decisively, proportionally, and in accordance with international law,' said the official.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) chief executive officer, Mark Dubowitz, said in a statement late this week: 'Israel did what had to be done: defend itself, the West, and ultimately the Iranian people from the genocidal ambitions of the mullahs.
'Nuclear talks were heading to collapse under Tehran's defiance, and sanctions alone couldn't stop Iran's race toward multiple nuclear weapons.'
bongani.hans@inl.co.za
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
Trump says Vietnam to face 20% tariff under 'great' deal
President Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he had struck a trade deal with Vietnam under which the country would face a minimum 20 percent tariff and open its market to US products. The deal comes less than a week before Trump's self-imposed July 9 deadline for steeper tariffs on US trade partners to take effect if agreements are not reached. Shares in clothing companies and sport equipment manufacturers -- which have a large footprint in Vietnam -- rose on the news, but later declined sharply after the president released details including the continued tariffs, which were higher than expected. If confirmed, the terms of the agreement will significantly increase the price of shoes and clothing that Vietnam exports to the United States, but Hanoi escapes the threat of the more severe 46 percent tariff threatened by Trump in April. "It is my Great Honor to announce that I have just made a Trade Deal with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam after speaking with To Lam, the Highly Respected General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. He said that under the "Great Deal of Cooperation," imports of Vietnamese goods will face a 20 percent US tariff, while goods that pass through Vietnam to circumvent steeper trade barriers -- so-called "transshipping" -- will see a 40 percent tariff. - 'Total Access' - Trump's trade advisor Peter Navarro has called Vietnam a "colony of China," saying that one third of Vietnamese products are in fact relabelled Chinese goods. Trump said that "in return, Vietnam will do something that they have never done before, give the United States of America TOTAL ACCESS to their Markets for Trade," he said. "In other words, they will 'OPEN THEIR MARKET TO THE UNITED STATES,' meaning that we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff." The president said he believed US-made SUVs, "which do so well in the United States, will be a wonderful addition to the various product lines within Vietnam." In a government statement, Vietnam confirmed that negotiating teams had come to an agreement to address the reciprocal tariff issue, but did not detail any tariff terms. Trump "affirmed that the US will significantly reduce reciprocal taxes for many Vietnamese export goods and will continue to cooperate with Vietnam in resolving difficulties affecting bilateral trade relations, especially in areas prioritized by both sides," the statement said. Trump's announcement comes a week before the threatened US reimposition of steep tariffs on dozens of economies, including the European Union and Japan, many of which are still scrambling to reach deals that would protect them from the measures. Those higher tariffs are part of a package Trump initially imposed in April, citing a lack of "reciprocity" in trading relationships, before announcing a temporary lowering to 10 percent. Without a deal, Vietnam's "reciprocal tariff" would have risen from the baseline 10 percent to 46 percent. Since April, Washington had so far only announced a pact with Britain and a deal to temporarily lower retaliatory duties with China. Both involve the United States maintaining some of Trump's tariffs on the trading partners. The terms of the UK deal are more narrowly focused than those announced by Trump with Vietnam, with London and Washington agreeing to cut US tariffs on cars from 27.5 percent to 10 percent, with a limit of 100,000 vehicles a year. It also fully eliminated the 10 percent tariff on goods such as engines and aircraft parts. In return, Britain agreed to further open its market to US ethanol and beef. By Alex Pigman
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
US senator urges bribery probe over Trump-Paramount settlement
A US senator renewed calls Wednesday for a bribery investigation into Paramount following its $16 million settlement with President Donald Trump over a lawsuit the entertainment giant initially described as meritless. The president had sued the CBS News parent company for $20 billion, claiming the "60 Minutes" program had deceptively edited an interview with his 2024 election rival Kamala Harris in her favor. The suit is described by Trump's critics as part of a broader assault on press freedom that has seen him bar The Associated Press from the Oval Office and sue other media organizations over their coverage. Paramount nevertheless entered into mediation in a bid to placate Trump, as it seeks to close its $8 billion merger with the entertainment company Skydance, which needs federal government approval. "With Paramount folding to Donald Trump at the same time the company needs his administration's approval for its billion-dollar merger, this could be bribery in plain sight," said Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat. "Paramount has refused to provide answers to a congressional inquiry, so I'm calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken." Warren was among three senators who wrote to Paramount Global Chair Shari Redstone in May with bribery concerns over the company's efforts to settle the suit, calling for a congressional probe. Republicans control both chambers of Congress, limiting the power of Democrats to investigate or compel answers from witnesses. The senators' letter came after CBS News head Wendy McMahon and "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens quit over Paramount's handling of the showdown with Trump. - 'Paramount's surrender' - The company initially called the suit "completely without merit" and sought to have it dismissed. It said in a statement to AFP the $16 million would go toward Trump's future presidential library rather than to him personally, and added that the settlement did not include an apology. "Companies often settle litigation to avoid the high and somewhat unpredictable costs of legal defense, the risk of an adverse judgment that could result in significant financial or reputational damage, and the disruption to business operations that prolonged legal battles can cause," it added. But Warren said the company should be "ashamed of putting its profits over independent journalism" in the face of the Trump administration's "sheer corruption." Trump accused CBS of airing two different snippets from the same answer that Harris, then vice president, gave about Israel, to help her in her election campaign. Legal experts have argued that the lawsuit would have been an easy victory in court for CBS, which made public an unedited transcript of the Harris interview. And media watchers have pointed out that Trump routinely takes part in interviews that are edited for all manner of reasons, often in his favor. ABC News, owned by Disney, agreed to donate a similar amount to the Trump presidential library in its own settlement with the president late last year. Trump had contended that star ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos had defamed him by asserting that Trump had been found liable for rape in a civil lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll, when he was found liable for sexual abuse. Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, called the Paramount settlement "a sad day for press freedom." "This was a frivolous lawsuit and the payment being described as a 'settlement' bears no relation to Paramount's actual legal exposure in the case, which was negligible," he said in a statement. "Paramount should have fought this extortionate lawsuit in court, and it would have prevailed. Now Trump's presidential library will be a permanent monument to Paramount's surrender, a continual reminder of its failure to defend freedoms that are essential to our democracy." By Frankie Taggart
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Iran suspends cooperation with UN nuclear watchdog
TEHRAN - Iran on Wednesday formally suspended its cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, a measure drawn up in the wake of unprecedented Israeli and US strikes on the Islamic republic's nuclear sites. The war between Iran and Israel, which broke out on June 13 and lasted for 12 days, has intensified tensions between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). On June 25, a day after a ceasefire took hold, Iranian lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favour of the bill to suspend cooperation with the agency. State media said on Wednesday that the legislation had cleared the final hurdle and was in effect. The text, published by Iranian media, states that the legislation aims to "ensure full support for the inherent rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran" under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and "especially uranium enrichment". The issue of enrichment was at the core of disagreements between Washington and Tehran in nuclear negotiations that had been derailed by the war. Israel and some Western countries had for long accused Iran of seeking to quire nuclear weapons an ambition Tehran has consistently denied. The text of the law did not specify concrete moves linked to the suspension of cooperation with the IAEA, whose inspectors have had access to declared nuclear facilities. Following the parliament vote, the bill was approved by the Guardian Council, a body tasked with vetting legislation, before a final ratification from the presidency. Iranian President "Masoud Pezeshkian promulgated the law suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency", state TV said on Wednesday. Iranian officials have sharply criticised the IAEA for what they described as the agency's "silence" in the face of the Israeli and US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. - 'Deceptive and fraudulent' - Tehran has also lambasted the UN agency for a resolution adopted on June 12 that accuses Iran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations. Iranian officials said the resolution was among the "excuses" for the Israeli attacks. On Wednesday, senior judiciary official Ali Mozaffari said that IAEA director Rafael Grossi should "be held accountable" for what he called "preparing the groundwork for the crime" against Iran, referring to Israel's air raids. Mozaffari accused Grossi of "deceptive actions and fraudulent reporting", according to Iranian news agency Tasnim. Iran has rejected a request from Grossi to visit nuclear facilities bombed during the war, and earlier this week Pezeshkian decried his "destructive" conduct. Iran has said Grossi's request to visit the bombarded sites signalled "malign intent" but insisted there were no threats against him or against inspectors from his agency. France, Germany and Britain have condemned unspecified "threats" against the IAEA chief. Iran's ultra-conservative Kayhan newspaper has recently claimed that documents showed Grossi was an Israeli spy and should be executed. - Damage - On Monday, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said the parliament vote to halt cooperation with the IAEA reflected the "concern and anger of the Iranian public opinion". The 12-day war began when Israel launched a major bombing campaign on Iran and killed top military commanders and nuclear scientists, with Tehran responding with waves of missiles and drones launched at Israel. On June 22, Israel's ally the United States launched unprecedented strikes of its own on Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz. More than 900 people were killed in Iran, according to the judiciary. Iran's retaliatory attacks killed 28 people in Israel, according to authorities. US President Donald Trump said the US attacks had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear programme, though the extent of the damage was not clear. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has admitted "serious" damage to nuclear sites. But in a recent interview with CBS Evening News, he said: "One cannot obliterate the technology and science... through bombings." By Payam Doost Mohamadi
