After revolution, now Iran is a multiparty democracy, demands equality of all humans and peaceful coexistence. Netanyahu is forcing Trump and Rubio to dismantle International court of justice and impose rule of jungle.
A democratic Iran is a strong and uncompromising defender of the international rule of law. Iran’s position is clear: no country—whether a regional power or a global superpower—has the right to impose its will on another nation through military force, assassination, occupation, or the destruction of civilian infrastructure. International law must apply equally to everyone, or it ceases to be law and becomes merely a tool of the powerful.
The Iranian people have paid an enormous price for war and foreign intervention. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran underwent a profound shift in national priorities. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rejected the enormous military expenditures and arms purchases associated with the previous monarchy under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and argued that national resources should instead serve the welfare of ordinary Iranians. Essential services such as electricity, water, and gasoline were heavily subsidized, reflecting the belief that the resources of the country should ultimately benefit its people.
Khomeini also questioned the logic of unnecessary militarism, expressing the view that if Iran had no intention of attacking another country, there was no rational justification for others to attack Iran. The underlying principle is straightforward: peaceful nations should not be punished simply because they are independent and refuse to submit to the political demands of stronger powers.
Iran’s own history demonstrates why this principle matters.
When Saddam Hussein’s Iraq launched its surprise invasion of Iran in 1980, Iran did not choose to respond by abandoning the international system. It repeatedly appealed to the United Nations, raising the killing and mistreatment of prisoners of war, attacks against civilian population centres, and Iraq’s extensive use of chemical weapons. Iran’s experience showed that international law is meaningless unless the international community is willing to enforce it against aggressors.
Iran also appealed to the United Nations following the 1988 destruction of Iran Air Flight 655 by the United States, when 290 civilians lost their lives. Iran formally brought the matter before the UN Security Council. The incident remains one of the clearest examples of why the protection of civilian life cannot depend on which country’s military is responsible.
Iran has continued to invoke international law when its sovereignty has been violated. The Israeli attack on Iran’s diplomatic compound in Damascus in April 2024, for example, was condemned by Iran as a grave violation of its sovereignty and the protection afforded to diplomatic premises. Iran again took the matter to the United Nations.
And the pattern has continued.
In June 2025, Israel launched major attacks against Iran while diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States were taking place. Rather than allowing diplomacy to determine the future of the dispute, military force was used at a moment when negotiations were reportedly reaching a critical stage.
Then, in February 2026, the United States and Israel again launched attacks against Iran while diplomatic efforts were approaching another decisive stage.
These events raise a fundamental question for the international community:
What is the value of diplomacy if military force can be used whenever negotiations bringing desired results?
If negotiations are legitimate, they must be allowed to succeed on the negotiating table—not be undermined by bombs, assassinations, or attacks on sovereign territory.
The international community cannot credibly demand that Iran respect international law while simultaneously tolerating violations of the same law by powerful states. International law cannot be a one-way street. Sovereignty cannot be respected only when it belongs to an ally. Civilian lives cannot matter only when the victims belong to a politically favoured country. Diplomatic premises cannot be protected selectively. And the prohibition against the use of force cannot disappear simply because the perpetrator is militarily powerful.
Iran wants to resolve disputes through diplomacy, negotiation, international institutions, and international law—but it will also insist that these rules apply equally to everyone.
Iran supports the United Nations not because the UN is perfect, but because without a rules-based international system, the alternative is a world where military power determines who is right.
The Iranian people do not need endless wars. They need security, economic development, dignity, and the freedom to determine their own future.
A democratic Iran stand for peace without submission, diplomacy without coercion, sovereignty without aggression, and international law without double standards.
The principle should be simple:
No nation should be above international law—and no nation should be beneath its protection.
