Trump seizes on Iran protests to escalate political pressure
By Delaram Ahmadi
Staff writer
US President Donald Trump has accused Iran of killing domestic protesters and threatened that if such events occurred during recent protests, Washington would intervene in support of demonstrators and strike the Islamic Republic. Iranian officials have condemned the remarks as interference in the country’s internal affairs and warned that US interests, including its troops in the region, would be put at risk. Beyond the disputed nature of Washington’s claim of supporting the Iranian people, the legality of intervening in a country’s affairs under international law remains a subject of debate. In an interview with Iran Daily, Afifeh Abedi, an international affairs expert, said that Trump’s threat, made under the pretext of suppressing protesters, was primarily a political pressure tool outside the framework of international law, driven by hostile motives and aligned with the same political objectives that have long shaped the US government’s approach toward Iran.
IRAN DAILY: From the perspective of international law, on what basis could the United States threaten military action against Iran on the pretext of supporting protestors, and would such an action have any legitimacy?
ABEDI: From the standpoint of international law, Trump’s threat of military action against Iran under the pretext of how the government deals with protesters is not only devoid of any legal basis, but also runs counter to the fundamental principles of the international order. Such a threat violates both the prohibition on the use and threat of force enshrined in the UN Charter and the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states. The management of protests falls squarely within the domestic jurisdiction of governments. It is the Iranian state that distinguishes genuine protesters from mercenaries whose aim is to create chaos. Moreover, international law does not permit one state to coerce another into changing its internal behavior through military threats. Trump’s threat should therefore be seen primarily as a political pressure tool outside the framework of international law, driven by hostile motives. This stance cannot be analyzed in isolation from the United States’ record and political motivations toward Iran. For years, Washington has justified its “maximum pressure” policy against Iran through double standards on human rights, while in practice the main burden of these policies has fallen on ordinary people.
Page 8