The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its consistent position that it does not seek escalation or spillover of the conflict in the region.
Exclusive
by Our Diplomatic Affairs Editor
In the wake of recent military actions between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Israel, we sit down with His Excellency Dr. Alireza Delkhosh, the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Iran to Sri Lanka, to shed light on the motivations and diplomatic repercussions surrounding Iran’s recent military operation against Israel. Dr. Delkhosh provides insights into Iran’s perspective on the events leading up to the military response, the diplomatic efforts undertaken in the aftermath of attacks on Iranian diplomatic premises, and Iran’s stance on maintaining regional stability amidst escalating tensions. Through this interview, we gain a deeper understanding of Iran’s position on the international stage and its commitment to upholding principles of international law and diplomacy in the face of conflict.
 |
| Dr. Alireza Delkhosh, the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Iran to Sri Lanka [ Photo: Sri Lanka Guardian] |
Excerpts;
Question: What was the reason behind the military operation of the Islamic Republic of Iran against Israel?
Answer: In the late hours of April 13, 2024, the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran carried out a series of military responses on Israeli military objectives with dozens of missiles and drones. This action was in exercise of Iran’s inherent right to self-defense as outlined in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, and in response to the Israeli regime’s recurring military aggressions, particularly its armed attack on April 1, 2024, against Iranian diplomatic premises, in defiance of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations.
Question: What was the diplomatic response of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding the attack by Israel on diplomatic facilities?
Answer: Following the Israeli Regime’s cowardly terrorist and armed attacks against the diplomatic premises of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Damascus, in flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter, Iran first notified the UNSC of Israel’s wrongful acts under international law and Iran’s inherent right to respond to such terrorist armed attacks (A/78/838-s/2024/281).
Next, the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran had a phone conversation with the UN Secretary-General on April 2, discussing the situation and calling for appropriate action and strong condemnation from the international community and the Security Council for this horrific crime. Subsequently, a letter from the Permanent Representative of Iran to the UN in New York addressed to the UNSC and UNSG followed (S/2024/281-S/2024/305).
Question: What points were emphasized in the letter of the Islamic Republic of Iran addressed to the United Nations?
Answer: The Permanent Representative of Iran underscored in the letter to the UNSC that the Israeli regime’s armed terrorist attack against Iran’s diplomatic premises in Damascus was a flagrant violation of international law and the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2(4) of the Charter, and the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. Iran emphasized in this report to the UNSC that this unlawful action constitutes an egregious breach of the fundamental and universally recognized principle of the inviolability of diplomatic and consular representatives and premises, which serves as a cornerstone of international relations.
Question: What demands did the Islamic Republic of Iran make from the United Nations Security Council after the attack on the Iranian Embassy’s Consulate building?
Answer: The Islamic Republic of Iran called upon the Security Council to strongly denounce this unjustified criminal and terrorist act, take decisive and appropriate measures to swiftly bring the perpetrators to justice, and prevent the recurrence of such horrible crimes against the diplomatic premises of any member state.
Question: Did the United Nations Security Council fulfill its mission and condemn Israel?
Answer: Unfortunately, once again, the UNSC failed in its important task. Despite Russia’s request, backed by China, Algeria, and many members of the Security Council, to uphold its duty to preserve international peace and security and to denounce this atrocious act, the Security Council regrettably failed in its duty, allowing the Israeli regime to transgress red lines and violate the fundamental principle of international law. This failure was caused by obstruction from three permanent members, namely the UK, the USA, and France, who had already blocked the Security Council for over six months to shield Israel from any responsibility for the Gaza massacre.
Question: Did the Islamic Republic of Iran have an option other than military action?
Answer: Facing such circumstances, the Islamic Republic of Iran had no choice but to exercise its inherent right to self-defense under international law, as underscored in the April 13, 2024, letter to the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General.
Question: Is the military response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Zionist regime a violation of commitments and the United Nations Charter?
Answer: Not at all. As a responsible member of the United Nations, the Islamic Republic of Iran is committed to the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and reaffirms its commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security.
Question: Did the Islamic Republic of Iran not anticipate that such a military operation might increase tensions in the Middle East?
Answer: The Islamic Republic of Iran reiterates its consistent position that it does not seek escalation or spillover of the conflict in the region. While warning about any further military provocations by the Israeli regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms its unwavering determination to defend its people, national security and interests, sovereignty, and territorial integrity against any threat or acts of aggression, and to respond to any such threat or aggression vigorously and in accordance with international law. Furthermore, Iran has no intention of engaging in conflict with the US in the region. Should the US initiate military operations against Iran, its citizens, or interests, Iran will reserve its inherent right to respond proportionately.
Question: What were the objectives targeted in the military operation by Iran?
Answer: In fact, this action targeted military objectives, not civilian precincts. It was precise and carried out carefully to minimize the potential for escalation and prevent harm to civilians.
Post a Comment