作者： admin

In a significant diplomatic development, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan convened their first telephone discussion since late December to address Iran’s recent retaliatory strikes against Gulf nations. The high-level conversation occurred on Saturday amid escalating regional tensions.

The UAE’s official WAM news agency reported that both leaders examined recent regional developments, particularly what they characterized as ‘blatant Iranian attacks’ targeting the UAE and several neighboring nations. The dialogue resulted in a strong joint condemnation of what they described as a ‘dangerous escalation that threatens the region’s security and undermines its stability.’

Demonstrating Gulf solidarity, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman pledged Saudi Arabia’s ‘full solidarity with the UAE’ and offered the kingdom’s resources to support any measures the Emirates might undertake. President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed expressed his gratitude for this show of support between the Gulf allies.

Concurrently, the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal statement condemning the Iranian missile attacks that affected the Emirates and other Gulf states. The ministry emphasized the indivisible nature of regional security, stating that any infringement on the sovereignty of one nation constitutes a direct threat to the entire region’s stability.

The UAE reaffirmed its categorical rejection of using regional territories as arenas for settling disputes or expanding conflicts, warning of grave consequences from continued violations that could undermine both regional and international security. The statement highlighted particular concerns about threats to global economic stability and energy security.

Despite the firm stance, the UAE reiterated its call for restraint and diplomatic solutions, emphasizing that serious dialogue remains the most effective path to overcome the current crisis. The ministry simultaneously underscored that the Emirates retains its full and legitimate right to respond to the attacks, maintaining all options for self-defense.

A cloud of uncertainty hangs over the status of Iran’s top leadership following coordinated military strikes by the United States and Israel on Tehran this past Saturday. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi, in an interview with NBC, stated that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian remain alive “as far as I know,” asserting the situation was “under control” with most high-ranking officials safe, aside from a few military commanders.

Contradicting these assurances, Israeli media outlets have circulated growing assessments within their military intelligence suggesting Khamenei may have been killed in the attacks. Channel 12, citing anonymous Israeli government sources, reported there are “growing indications” the Supreme Leader perished, though the Israeli government has not officially confirmed this. Concurrently, Israel’s Kan state TV reported a complete lack of contact with Khamenei, leaving his fate unknown.

The strikes reportedly targeted nearly all senior Iranian leaders. According to three separate sources familiar with the matter who spoke to Reuters, Iran’s Defence Minister Amir Nasirzadeh and Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) commander Mohammad Pakpour are believed to have been killed. An unconfirmed report from an Iranian establishment source also indicated several senior IRGC commanders and political officials had died, though Middle East Eye could not independently verify these claims.

Iranian state media moved to project stability, confirming that areas near the presidential palace and Khamenei’s compound were struck but reporting that President Pezeshkian, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Foreign Minister Aragchi, and other key figures were unharmed. An official told Reuters that Khamenei was not in Tehran during the attack and had been relocated to a secure location.

The attacks have triggered a significant regional escalation. Iran launched retaliatory strikes targeting Israel and several Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, with explosions reported near U.S. bases. A tragic strike on a school in southern Iran is reported to have killed at least 50 girls, aged between seven and twelve, though the full civilian casualty toll remains unclear.

The operation, described by former U.S. President Donald Trump in an eight-minute speech on Truth Social as “major combat operations in Iran,” was justified as a measure to prevent Iran from “threatening America and our core national security interests” through its nuclear program and long-range missile development. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the offensive as an effort to enable the Iranian people “to throw off the yoke of tyranny.”

This event marks a severe intensification of hostilities, echoing Israel’s 12-day war on Iran in June of last year, which saw the assassination of several top Iranian military officials and nuclear scientists.

A series of coordinated US-Israeli aerial and missile assaults on Iranian territory this Saturday has ignited intense legal scrutiny regarding potential violations of established international legal standards. Prominent legal authorities are now challenging the legality of these military operations, which they argue constitute a clear breach of the United Nations Charter.

Professor Marko Milanovic, an esteemed expert in public international law at the University of Reading, maintains that these strikes represent unlawful actions under international law. “The operations are unequivocally illegal as they violate the UN Charter’s prohibition against unilateral use of force between sovereign states,” Milanovic stated in an interview with Middle East Eye. He further explained that while self-defense remains the only potential justification, the necessary legal requirements for such a claim remain unfulfilled in this instance.

In response to these attacks, Iran launched retaliatory strikes targeting Israel and several Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar. Initial reports indicate significant casualties, with at least 63 schoolgirls reportedly killed in a strike on an educational facility in southern Iran.

US President Donald Trump characterized the operation as a preventive measure against nuclear proliferation and “eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Simultaneously, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the attack as creating conditions for Iranian citizens to “remove the yoke of tyranny.”

The legal framework governing such actions derives primarily from Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in two specific circumstances: authorization by the UN Security Council or legitimate self-defense under Article 51 following an armed attack. Since the Security Council did not authorize these strikes, the legal justification rests solely on questionable self-defense claims.

International law recognizes three distinct perspectives regarding self-defense: preventive self-defense (widely rejected), anticipatory self-defense (permitted only against genuinely imminent attacks), and self-defense following actual armed aggression. Legal analysis suggests the US-Israeli actions fail to meet the standards for any legitimate self-defense claim, particularly given the absence of evidence regarding Iran’s immediate intent or capability to launch an attack.

The proportionality and necessity of the strikes also face serious legal challenges, especially considering ongoing diplomatic negotiations and the lack of evidence supporting claims about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Oman’s foreign minister, acting as mediator in US-Iran talks, confirmed Iran’s formal commitment to never develop nuclear weapons—a position consistent with findings from US intelligence agencies and the UN nuclear watchdog.

Under international law, Iran retains the right to self-defense, provided its response remains necessary and proportionate. However, targeting facilities in third-party countries that weren’t involved in the initial attack presents additional legal complications.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies aggression as one of four core international crimes, though jurisdiction doesn’t extend to American, Israeli, or Iranian leaders since these nations aren’t parties to the ICC’s founding treaty.

Tehran residents awoke to unprecedented violence on Saturday as coordinated American and Israeli strikes targeted Iran’s capital, creating scenes of devastation and personal tragedy across the city. The attacks marked a significant escalation in regional tensions, with multiple strategic locations struck including areas housing government facilities and residential neighborhoods housing prominent figures.

Hossein, a Tehran resident, discovered his parents’ home in the Narmak district completely destroyed after repeated attempts to contact them failed. “I had begged them to leave Tehran,” he told Middle East Eye, emotionally recounting how his retired parents had refused to abandon their home despite warnings. The neighborhood, known for housing former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other high-ranking officials, became a primary target in what appears to be an attempt to decapitate Iran’s leadership.

The Iranian National Security Council urgently advised civilians to evacuate major urban centers, creating massive traffic jams as millions attempted to flee Tehran. Plumes of smoke rose from various locations including central areas near Jomhouri and Pasteur streets, where the supreme leader’s residence and presidential offices are located. Reports confirmed strikes extending beyond Tehran to Qom, Karaj, Isfahan, Kermanshah, and Ilam province.

Among the most tragic incidents was the bombing of Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab city, where at least 63 children perished with more bodies still being recovered from rubble. The attack has sparked widespread horror and raised questions about targeting protocols.

While US President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu framed the offensive as potential liberation for Iranians, many citizens expressed profound anxiety about the future. Azar, a retired teacher who survived the Iran-Iraq War, stated: “I have never seen war lead to anything good. No matter how criminal a government may be, war is still worse.”

The crisis has created political uncertainty with opposition groups including Reza Pahlavi (son of the former monarch) and the National Council of Resistance of Iran positioning themselves as transitional rulers. Kurdish groups like PJAK have indicated they view the situation as both opportunity and threat.

For ordinary citizens like Milad, a shop owner near Republic Street, the reality remains terrifying uncertainty. “I honestly have no idea what will happen next,” he confessed after experiencing the explosions firsthand. “Right now, I feel like a question mark myself.”