Iran says documented role of neighboring countries in facilitating US-Israeli aggression

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister for Legal and International Affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, has announced that Tehran has comprehensively documented the role played by certain neighboring countries in facilitating the recent US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, submitting over 100 diplomatic notes to the United Nations to pave the way for legal prosecution.

Speaking at a press conference concluding his visit to Hormozgan province, Gharibabadi revealed the extent of Iran's legal and intelligence documentation regarding the war.

He confirmed that more than 100 diplomatic notes detailing the aggression and regional complicity have been dispatched to the United Nations and the UN Security Council, and officially registered as UN documents.

"In these documents, information regarding the origin of flights and missile launches, the time of occurrence, targets, and impact locations has been gathered to enable legal pursuit of these matters," Gharibabadi stated, emphasizing that this precise data ensures the legal accountability of all parties involved in the attacks.

Gharibabadi detailed the broader legal strategy Tehran is employing to hold the United States and the Zionist regime accountable.

He noted that over 170 correspondences have been prepared by heads of executive bodies, ministers, and organization leaders regarding damages across various sectors.

"The diplomatic apparatus and legal sectors of the country are obligated to document the crimes and damages caused by the war and pursue them in international organizations, legal and judicial forums, and foreign courts," he affirmed.

Specialized reports on the US-Israeli attacks on the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab, the Lamerd stadium, oil storage tanks, environmental consequences, and other infrastructure have been formally registered as UN Security Council documents.

On the domestic front, Gharibabadi confirmed that multiple cases have been opened by the Iranian judiciary.

The case concerning the Minab school massacre is fully prepared in Hormozgan and has been sent to court following the issuance of an indictment.

Furthermore, by order of the Head of the Judiciary, all cases related to the 40-day imposed war have been centralized in Tehran for streamlined criminal and legal proceedings.

Absolute control over the Strait of Hormuz

While highlighting Iran's commitment to its neighborhood policy and its desire for constructive relations with all neighbors, including the Arab states on the southern coast of the Persian Gulf, Gharibabadi drew a firm red line regarding sovereignty and regional stability.

"The security of Iran and the countries of the region are intertwined, and it is expected that no country will allow its territory to be used to create insecurity or violate Iran's national security," he warned.

Shifting to the strategic Strait of Hormuz, Gharibabadi asserted that the waterway is an integral part of Iran's national security and defensive capabilities.

"Iran has the right to make the necessary decisions to prevent violations of its national security," he stated.

He clarified that the current restrictions and control arrangements in the strait are a direct result of the war conditions and will remain in place until the United States concludes that military solutions are futile and adheres to its commitments.

Gharibabadi issued a directive regarding maritime traffic in the region: "The transit of ships in the current conditions must be coordinated with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The transit of commercial ships without coordination with Iran contradicts the announced arrangements, and the Armed Forces will act against violations of these arrangements. The transit of warships through the Strait of Hormuz is banned."

Addressing recent technical developments, Gharibabadi noted that Iran and Oman have reached an understanding regarding the entry and exit routes for the Strait of Hormuz.

The two countries are currently reviewing executive arrangements to register the relevant maritime maps with the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

However, he cautioned that this technical and legal step does not signify the immediate reopening of the strait, emphasizing that any subsequent action in this regard remains strictly contingent on the implementation of US commitments.

The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which established the framework for halting the US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran, laid out explicit conditions regarding maritime navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Under the agreement, brokered with the mediation of Pakistan, the United States committed to lifting its illegal naval blockade, releasing frozen Iranian assets, and ceasing all military operations in exchange for a phased normalization of maritime traffic.

Crucially, the MoU stipulated that any resumption of commercial transit through the strait must be coordinated with and approved by the Islamic Republic of Iran, recognizing Tehran's sovereign security interests in the vital waterway.

However, in a blatant act of bad faith, Washington moved to undermine the agreement almost immediately after its signing.

US officials, eager to project an image of restored hegemonic control over global shipping lanes, attempted to force the transit of several vessels through the Strait of Hormuz without coordination with Iranian authorities and in direct violation of the MoU's stipulated timelines and conditions.

The move was widely seen as a deliberate provocation aimed at testing Iran's resolve and unilaterally redefining the terms of the ceasefire.

The Islamic Republic's Armed Forces responded decisively, intercepting and punishing the violating vessels in accordance with the defensive arrangements established during the war.

Tehran made it unequivocally clear that any attempt to bypass the agreed-upon framework would be met with firm enforcement action.

The decisive response served as a powerful reminder that Iran's control over the strait is not a bargaining chip to be eroded through incremental violations, but a non-negotiable component of the nation's security architecture.

The US attempt to derail the Islamabad MoU through unilateral maritime provocations has only reinforced Tehran's determination to maintain its defensive posture in the strait.