War Archive 2024+ Iran VS Israel

[LegionnairE]

Pakistan, however, seems to be playing a more proactive role.

View attachment 19042

Empty rhetoric. What will they do?

 

[Saif]

Amnesty urges Iran, Israel to spare civilians in their conflict

Amnesty International on Wednesday urged Israel and Iran to spare civilians as their conflict escalates and alarm grows over the death toll. "As the number of deaths and injuries continue to rise, Amnesty International is urging both parties to comply with their obligations and ensure that...

en.prothomalo.com

Amnesty urges Iran, Israel to spare civilians in their conflict

AFP Paris
Published: 18 Jun 2025, 22: 19

Amnesty International on Wednesday urged Israel and Iran to spare civilians as their conflict escalates and alarm grows over the death toll.

"As the number of deaths and injuries continue to rise, Amnesty International is urging both parties to comply with their obligations and ensure that civilians in both countries do not further pay the price of reckless military action," said the global human rights group's0 secretary general Agnes Callamard.

The conflict began Friday, when Israel launched a massive bombing campaign that prompted Iran to respond with missiles and drones.

Iran said on Sunday that Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people, including military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. It has not issued an updated toll since then.


At least 24 people have been killed in Israel and hundreds wounded, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office said on Monday.

"Further escalation of these hostilities risks unleashing devastating and far-reaching consequences for civilians across the region and beyond," said Callamard.

She accused the United States and other G7 members of failing to recognise "the catastrophic impact this escalation will have on civilians in both countries".

"Instead of cheering on one party to the conflict over another, as if civilian suffering is a mere sideshow, states must ensure the protection of civilians," she added.

Israel said its surprise air campaign was aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons -- an ambition Tehran denies.​

 

[Saif]

Khamenei says Iran will never surrender, warns off US

The speech came six days into the conflict, with Trump demanding Iran's "unconditional surrender"

en.prothomalo.com

Khamenei says Iran will never surrender, warns off US
AFP Tehran
Published: 18 Jun 2025, 17: 48

A handout picture provided by the Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's office shows him speaking during the Friday prayer ceremony in Tehran on 4 October, 2024 AFP

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday the nation would never surrender as demanded by President Donald Trump and warned the United States it would face "irreparable damage" if it intervenes in support of its ally.

The speech came six days into the conflict, with Trump demanding Iran's "unconditional surrender" while boasting the United States could kill Khamenei and fuelling speculation about a possible intervention.

The long-range blitz began Friday, when Israel launched a massive bombing campaign that prompted Iran to respond with missiles and drones.

"This nation will never surrender," Khamenei said in a speech read on state television, in which he called Trump's ultimatum "unacceptable".

"America should know that any military intervention will undoubtedly result in irreparable damage," he said.

Khamenei, in power since 1989 and the final arbiter of all matters of state in Iran, had earlier vowed the country would show "no mercy" towards Israel's leaders.

The speech followed a night of strikes, with Israeli attacks destroying two buildings making centrifuge components for Iran's nuclear programme near Tehran, according to the UN nuclear watchdog.

"More than 50 Israeli Air Force fighter jets... carried out a series of air strikes in the Tehran area over the past few hours," the Israeli military said, adding that several weapons manufacturing facilities were hit.

"As part of the broad effort to disrupt Iran's nuclear weapons development programme, a centrifuge production facility in Tehran was targeted."

Centrifuges are vital for uranium enrichment, the sensitive process that can produce fuel for reactors or, in highly extended form, the core of a nuclear warhead.

The strikes destroyed two buildings making centrifuge components for Iran's nuclear programme in Karaj, a satellite city of Tehran, the International Atomic Energy Agency said.

In another strike on a site in Tehran, "one building was hit where advanced centrifuge rotors were manufactured and tested", the agency added in a post on X.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said they had launched hypersonic Fattah-1 missiles at Tel Aviv.

Hypersonic missiles travel at more than five times the speed of sound and can manoeuvre mid-flight, making them harder to track and intercept.

No missile struck Tel Aviv overnight, though AFP photos showed Israel's air defence systems activated to intercept missiles over the commercial hub.

Iran also sent a "swarm of drones" towards Israel, while the Israeli military said it had intercepted a total of 10 drones launched from Iran.

It said one of its own drones had been shot down over Iran.

Trump fuelled speculation about US intervention when he made a hasty exit from the G7 summit in Canada, where the leaders of the club of wealthy democracies called for de-escalation but backed Israel's "right to defend itself".

He boasted that the United States could easily assassinate Khamenei.

"We know exactly where the so-called 'Supreme Leader' is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there -- We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Trump met with his National Security Council to discuss the conflict. There was no immediate public statement after the hour and 20 minute meeting.

US officials stressed Trump has not yet made a decision about any intervention.

Evacuations

Israel's attacks have hit nuclear and military facilities around Iran, as well as residential areas.

Residential areas in Israel have also been hit, and foreign governments have scrambled to evacuate their citizens from both countries.

Many Israelis spent another night disrupted by air raid warnings, with residents of coastal hub Tel Aviv repeatedly heading for shelters when sirens rang out warning of incoming Iranian missiles.

In the West Bank city of Ramallah, perched at 800 metres (2,600 feet) above sea level and with a view over Tel Aviv, some residents gathered on rooftops and balconies to watch.

An AFP journalist reported cheers and whistles as dozens of missiles flew overhead, with Israeli air defences activating to intercept them, causing mid-air explosions which lit up the sky.

Since Friday, at least 24 people have been killed in Israel and hundreds wounded, according to Netanyahu's office.

Iran said on Sunday that Israeli strikes had killed at least 224 people, including military commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians. It has not issued an updated toll since then.

On Tuesday in Tehran, long queues stretched outside bakeries and petrol stations as people rushed to stock up on fuel and basic supplies.

Iran's ISNA and Tasnim news agencies on Wednesday reported that five suspected agents of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency had been detained, on charges of tarnishing the country's image online.

Nuclear facilities

After a prolonged shadow war, Israel said its surprise air campaign was aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons -- an ambition Tehran denies.

The UN nuclear watchdog said there appeared to have been "direct impacts on the underground enrichment halls" at Iran's Natanz facility.

Israel has maintained ambiguity regarding its own atomic activities, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) says it has 90 nuclear warheads.

The conflict derailed a running series of nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington, with Iran saying after the start of Israel's campaign that it would not negotiate with the United States while under attack.​

 

[Saif]

Debate rages over legality of Israel's attack on Iran

When it comes to discussing whether Israel's initial attack on Iran was justified or not, the arguments on both sides are strident and emotional. Israel broke international law by attacking another country, one side says. It's a rogue state, bombing across borders with impunity, they claim.

en.prothomalo.com

Debate rages over legality of Israel's attack on Iran
Israel says it struck Iran in self-defense, fearing a nuclear threat. But international law covering self-defense by states is very strict — fueling heated debate about the legality of Israel's initial attack.

Deutsche Welle
Updated: 18 Jun 2025, 19: 16

Israel launched strikes at Iran on June 13, saying they were aimed at degrading the country's ability to make a nuclear weapon.

When it comes to discussing whether Israel's initial attack on Iran was justified or not, the arguments on both sides are strident and emotional.

Israel broke international law by attacking another country, one side says. It's a rogue state, bombing across borders with impunity, they claim.

But Israel has been threatened by Iran for years and Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb, the other side argues. That poses an existential threat, they insist.

But which side does international law — unswayed by emotion — come down on?

Iranian leaders have been threatening Israel for years but in legal terms, the question must be whether they were making a nuclear bomb they would fire at Tel Aviv, experts say.

How do analysts view legality of Israeli strikes?

Senior Israeli politicians described their country's attack on Iran on 13 June as a "preemptive, precise" attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, arguing it was self-defense because they feared a future nuclear attack by Iran.

Under international law, there are very specific rules about self-defense, for example Articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter, and it's more likely this was what's known as a "preventive" attack.

"My impression is that the majority of legal analysts see [Israel's attack] as a case of 'prohibited self-defense'," Matthias Goldmann, a law professor and international law expert at EBS University Wiesbaden, told DW.

"Because the requirements for self-defense are rather strict. They require an imminent attack that cannot be fended off in any other way. If you apply that requirement, you come to the conclusion that there was no attack imminent from Iran."

The timing alone makes that clear, Goldmann and others argue. On 12 June, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, issued a statement saying that Iran was not fully cooperating with it. But Israel has not presented any evidence as to why they believed a nuclear threat from Iran was so close and US intelligence suggests Iran was possibly three years away from a bomb.

There have been years of threatening rhetoric between Iran and Israel but it's deemed highly unlikely that Iran would fire a nuclear weapon at Israel later this month.

"Look back at the Cold War," Goldmann suggested. "Both sides had nuclear weapons and relied on the principle of mutually assured destruction — where you don't use your nuclear weapon because you know the counterstrike would be fatal. That's why the mere fact of possessing nuclear weapons in itself cannot be considered an imminent attack."

Israel itself already has an unspecified number of nuclear weapons but never signed the UN's Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and does not allow international inspections.

In defense of Israel

In a text for the website Just Security, Israeli law professors Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany agree an attack in self-defense would have been illegal.

But, they say, the attack on Iran should actually be seen as part of the larger conflict. "That changes the legal arguments because the attack would have happened in a differently defined context," they say.

In another opinion published this week on the US military academy West Point's website, Articles of War, Michael Schmitt, an American professor of public law, argues that the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat means the concept of self-defense could be interpreted more liberally.

But Schmitt admits this is a "tough case" because there were still other options than force. Another of the preconditions to attacking in self-defense is that a country must have exhausted all other options — and Schmitt notes nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran were ongoing at the time of the attack.

There's another reason why most legal experts believe Israel's attack was illegal, says Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the UK's University of Reading. Ultimately the law on this is built to be restrictive, he says. "It's about minimizing the need to resort to force. It's not about creating loopholes that any state that likes to bomb others can exploit," he told DW.

Laws of combat

All is not fair in war, once the fighting starts," says Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Boston's Tufts University. "There is a carefully calibrated legal framework which applies equally to both sides."

Parties cannot target civilians or civilian objects, Dannenbaum told DW. "Objects only become military objectives when, by their nature, purpose, location, or use, they make an effective contribution to military action."

The Israeli Ministry of Defense and the headquarters of the Israeli Defense forces is in central Tel Aviv and surrounding civilian buildings were damaged in recent Iranian attacks.

For example, this relates to Israeli targeting of Iranian nuclear scientists in their homes: Many lawyers explained that simply working on a weapons programme doesn't make you a combatant.

Meanwhile, Iran's bombing has also killed civilians in Tel Aviv. "Even when targeting military objectives, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm," Dannenbaum explains, "and must not attack if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage."

It's hard to say if cases like this will ever be argued in court though. Goldmann, Dannenbaum and Milanovic say there's potential for related cases to eventually be heard at the International Court of Justice or perhaps at the European Court of Human Rights.

"But most of these types of issues on use of force don't end up in court," Milanovic said. "They get resolved in other ways. They're too political, or too large." Usually international diplomacy ends up resolving the issue, he noted.

Degrading international law

For many legal experts, one of the most worrying aspects is what appears to be implicit state support for Israel's most-likely-illegal definition of self-defense.

For example, while not referring specifically to the 13 June attack on Iran, statements by Germany's government have all contained some form of the phrase, "Israel has the right to defend itself."

"Of course, Israel does have a right to defend itself — but that right is limited by international law," Milanovic argues.

The rules on self-defense are strict for a reason, he and Goldmann explain.

If you start expanding their definition — for instance, saying you have the right to attack another state because they attacked you several years ago, or might attack you a few years from now — the rules are eroded, along with the whole system of international law.

In the past, the international community has spoken out, for example, amid the controversy surrounding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on claims that it possessed "weapons of mass destruction," Goldmann noted.

"The legal argument Russia made [for invading Ukraine] is also actually very similar to this Israeli argument," Milanovic pointed out.

"If you read [Vladimir] Putin's speech on the eve of the 2022 invasion, it basically said that at some point in the future Ukraine and NATO are going to attack us and that's why we're doing this. But that's really not about self-defense," he concludes.

"That's about, say, you don't like somebody, you think they're a threat and therefore you think you have the right to go to war with them. Which is simply not what international law says."​

 

[Lulldapull]

Iran's gained the initiative here despite all odds days ago now.

Its business as usual now, with Iran messing Israel up...... unless the US attacks, then it will tip da scales.

All bets are off if da US jumps in.......

Iran can easily beat Israel into submission, which these other muzlim two bit itty bitty countries can't even dream of ever doing.