From the Moment the Military Offensive Led by the Zionist and American Armies Against Iran Lacks Any UN Mandate
Since the offensive is not backed by any United Nations resolution, it has no legal cover and can therefore perfectly meet the criteria of an unjustified aggression, regardless of what is said about Iran’s nuclear program or Tehran’s response to the U.S. military bases stationed in the region.
The Nuclear Deal and Its Collapse
La Presse – The nuclear program was the subject of long and difficult negotiations between Iranian authorities and the major world powers (United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Germany). An agreement was even reached in 2015 under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), guaranteeing that uranium enrichment would remain civilian, limited to 3.67 % and with a stock not exceeding 300 kg. In return, the sanctions previously imposed on Iran were lifted, and almost everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
However, that ten‑year agreement was unilaterally broken by the United States in 2018, during the first term of President Donald Trump, who also reinstated sanctions and threatened to tax European firms that continued to cooperate with Iran. Many multinationals withdrew, plunging Iran into economic hardship. Tehran then reneged on its 2015 commitments, drawing the ire of the West and heightening the concerns of its neighbours, especially the Zionist occupier.
The 2025 Nuclear Crisis
The crisis peaked in 2025 when uranium enrichment reached 60 % and enriched stockpiles surpassed 400 kg. The U.S. administration, under Trump’s second term, decided to carry out a deterrent strike during the 12‑day war of June last year.
For most Western countries—and Israel in particular—Iran’s nuclear program is seen as a regional and international threat. Although Tehran repeatedly assured that it has no intention of reaching 90 % enrichment, the level required for a nuclear bomb, these statements are certified by the IAEA.
Ballistic Missiles Add to the Anxiety
Iran’s ballistic‑missile program, capable of striking up to 10,000 km, is another source of worry, especially in Europe and the United States. For a country like France, Iran is held responsible for the current escalation in the Middle East, even though it claims to act in legitimate self‑defence, arguing that it was not the first to open hostilities in June 2025 nor in the present confrontation.
The Reasons for a War That International Law Does Not Recognise
While the Iranian nuclear and ballistic programmes are repeatedly invoked to justify the ongoing American‑Zionist aggression, other narratives surface in public discourse:
- “Overthrow of the Mullah regime”
- “Divine promise of the promised land from the Euphrates to the Nile”
- “Muslims must not acquire nuclear weapons”
- “The onset of Armageddon” (the end of times)
These theological‑type perceptions add new, incompatible dimensions to the conflict, clashing with the secular principles upheld by Western democracies and international law.
In reality, the nuclear argument is merely an alibi for destroying a nation—much like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by alleged weapons of mass destruction.
Manipulating Regional Tensions
Claiming that Iran attacks its neighbours, when in fact it targeted U.S. bases and Zionist military sites, shows a deliberate attempt to ignite regional discord among Muslim‑majority states. The nuclear and ballistic threats become misleading rhetoric.
- Why provoke Kurdish rebellion against Tehran instead of supporting an internal pro‑Shah uprising?
- Why bomb a girls’ school that has nothing to do with Iran’s military program, other than to satisfy blood‑thirsty, possibly satanic appetites?
The undeclared goal appears to be weakening or eliminating all forces that could block the purely religious obsession of building a Third Temple on the ruins of al‑Aqsa Mosque and establishing a “Greater Israel” from the Euphrates to the Nile—an objective now openly promoted by the far‑right Zionist movement.
Wider Targets
The rhetoric of fear from extremist Zionists also indicates that Iran is not the only target; other countries are on the destruction list: Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, etc.
The scheme—pushing regional states to turn on each other and dragging NATO members into this war of aggression—has so far failed. Gulf states understand they need stability and peace to protect their economic interests and continue selling hydrocarbons.
Many NATO countries, already exhausted by the war in Ukraine, do not want an illegal war that doesn’t eliminate an imminent or proven threat. For the rest of the world, paying $200 per barrel just to please “Bibi” (Benjamin Netanyahu) would be far from opportune.
