DoMan

اگر شیطان در یک طرف و جلیلی در طرف دیگر بود من طرف شیطان خواهم بود . بر گرفته از تعبیر موسی صدر

The U.S. ambassador to the UN tells this body that Iran cannot hold the world's economies hostage by throwing mines into an international waterway to get its way in negotiations or in conflict. The charge inverts cause and effect, and it inverts law and lawlessness. It is not the coastal State whose shores this strait washes that first weaponised these waters. It was the United States that used the very neutrality of this waterway as the corridor through which it armed, equipped, based, and launched a war of aggression against Iran. Let the sequence be stated plainly. The prohibition on the threat or use of force in Article 2(4) of the Charter, and the correlative prohibition on aggression, are not ordinary rules. They are peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted and against which no treaty, no coalition, and no Security Council press conference can prevail. Whatever weight the law accords to the freedom of maritime transit, that regime is ordinary law, not peremptory law; it cannot be ranked above the prohibition of aggression, and where the two collide it is the rule of navigation that must yield, never the norm that forbids the war itself. Aggression is the gravest of international crimes precisely because it is the seed from which every subsequent atrocity grows. A State that crosses that threshold does not acquire, by crossing it, the standing to arraign its victim for the victim's defensive response. The United States and its partner opened this war. They did not do so from their own territory. They did so by converting an international strait — a passage protected in law for the innocent passage of all — into a hostile military corridor directed against the littoral State on whose coast it lies. The regime of straits exists to guarantee peaceful transit; it does not license a distant Power to use the passage as a launching lane for strikes on the very country that borders it. To turn a neutral waterway into a base of operations against its coastal State is the original misuse of the strait. Everything Iran has since done in these waters is a consequence of that misuse, not its cause. Against that backdrop, consider what the President of the United States has said in the plainest possible language. He has threatened to knock out every bridge and every power plant in Iran. He has warned that a whole civilisation would "die tonight," never to be brought back. He has told an entire nation that it will have nothing, and no one, left. These are not the words of a limited, defensive, military operation. They are threats of national annihilation, delivered as instruments of coercion, with the express purpose being to force a sovereign State to the negotiating table under pain of extinction. A State confronted with a war of aggression and with declared threats against its very existence retains the full measure of the inherent right of self-defence preserved by Article 51 of the Charter. Faced with a breach of a peremptory norm and with an existential threat, Iran is entitled to take the measures necessary to repel the aggression, to deter its continuation, and to safeguard its survival. The measures Iran adopts are defensive measures of a State under armed attack. They're not the "collective punishment" of the world, but the self-preservation of a nation the world's most powerful military has publicly promised to destroy. On survival, let there be no ambiguity, because survival is the deepest stratum of this law. The International Court of Justice has affirmed the fundamental right of every State to survival, and with it the right to resort to self-defence when its very survival is at stake. No legal order, none, obliges a people to submit quietly to its own extinction. Iran does not hold the world hostage. The world's economy was place at risk when this war was launched by the United States and Israel.

متاسفانه مذاکرات جدید هم یک تجربه شکست خورده جدید شد...