Iran’s mission at the UN presented today to its Security Council an in-depth report, accusing Israel of war crimes during their military campaign against Iran and demanding immediate action and formal recognition of violations under international law.
Comprehensive Documentation of Casualties and Destruction
According to Iran’s Permanent Mission’s report, between June 12 and 23 Israeli air, missile, and drone attacks killed or maimed approximately 1,100 civilians–132 women and 45 children–with 5,750 also being injured (Reuters +2 Mizan Online +2).
+2
This report documents assaults against civilian infrastructure ranging from residential areas and hospitals, kindergartens, public parks, media buildings and even Evin prison.
“Accusationss: Violation of Charter and Geneva Conventions
Accompanying Iran’s report was an incendiary letter sent directly to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and Security Council President Nikita Khrushchev that stated these strikes constitute “a flagrant violation” of U.N. Charter, international law, Geneva Conventions, human rights treaties as well as Iran’s demands that this document be registered and distributed among Council members
Mizan Online
Escalation of Iran-Israel Tensions The report comes after six months of escalated hostilities between Iran and Israel, beginning with Israel’s June attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities and military command centers, followed by Iranian counterattacks targeting Israel-based strategic sites with missile and drone barrages targeting Israeli strategic sites across Israel (Just Security +4 Reuters +4 AP News = +4)
Iranian officials, such as U.N. Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani, have consistently justified their retaliatory measures as legitimate self-defence, justifying these moves under Just Security (Reuters +5 @ +5).
Iran at the Security Council
At last month’s Security Council session, Iran accused Israel of conducting an unwarranted air campaign and accused Washington of being complicit through intelligence support for Israel’s use of force against Gaza, alleging U.S. complicity through aiding and enabling it. They shared responsibility “by aiding and enabling these crimes”, Iran claimed – something which U.S. intelligence denied at first sight (Reuters/+11).
This new report compiles additional evidence in support of their legal case.
Legal and Diplomatic Implications
By publicly presenting its dossier, Iran has laid the groundwork for international legal action, pushing for Security Council recommendations or investigations into violations of war laws and placing responsibility upon other UN members to address accountability through sanctions or referral to an International Criminal Court.
Israel, United States and International Responses
Israel has consistently justified its military operations as necessary and proportionate measures of self-defence against Iran’s nuclear and military threats. U.S. officials maintain that Israel can respond to emergent threats without further escalated confrontation; no official statements have yet been issued by either side in response to today’s filing by either country.
Iran’s Submission Marks an Evolution in Global Diplomacy
Iran’s submission marks an evolution in global diplomacy, shifting attention from military confrontation to legal and moral scrutiny at the UN. It presents Israel not simply as a regional foe but as violator of international norms – potentially impacting global opinion and future Council decisions.
What Comes Next
Now that Iran has submitted its report, the Security Council can officially release it, convene further sessions, commission investigations or issue presidential statements as they see fit. With deep divisions among permanent members preventing meaningful action being taken; Iran will likely increase its diplomatic campaign and seek wider support from non-aligned and developing nations alike.
As this conflict plays out in the U.N. arena, Middle Eastern observers increasingly keep their eye on it. The legal interpretation of this latest conflict could shape future negotiations, accountability mechanisms and perceptions of military deterrence.