This article is written by Pulkit Arora.

Introduction

When it comes to the lack of a sense of obligation against international laws, no other man-made altercation should be considered as guilty as is frequently ignored the clash of interests that exists between opposing nations that can lead to war causing a colossal loss of life as the principles of international (humanitarian) law. The study has found out the contentious relationship that two countries have shared over 65 years that reached a new height with the 1979 hostage crisis and the geopolitics and economics implication of both the nations on other countries. Further, the study has explored how both nations had breached the treaties and violated international law.

A brief history of conflict between U.S.A and Iran

• Command of the last shah of Iran

In 1941, the Anglo-Soviet allied incursion into Iran, they overthrew the Reza Shah from power and set up a supply route for military equipment to the Soviet Union. From 1942, U.S forces have participated in the activity of this Persian corridor, through this route the U.S supplied. Mohammad Reza Pahlavi the last shah of Iran, he had maintained a very cordial relationship with the United States until he was removed from power by the Islamic Revolution. He followed a modern economic agenda and a firmly pro-American foreign policy. He regarded America as a good friend.^[i]

• Operation Ajax and the rise of anti-Americanism

The two countries, the United States and Iran, were at arms since 1951. It was the first time when contention was shown between the Iranian and the foreign powers. In 1951, some conflict emerged over the influence of Britain on Iran; British government had interest in Iran since early 1900 through the Anglo Iranian oil company, British government held control over the oil resources of Iran. Further, the Iran government intended to retake possession over their natural resources. During this period, Mohammad Mosadeq was elected as the 35^th Prime Minister of Iran. Following this, the volatile event of 1953 had saw the breakdown of friendly ties Between the U.S and Iran with the deep anti-western tendency in Iran politics, leading to the rise of strong anti-Americanism because Britain with the help of U.S.A conducted operation “Ajax” on August 1953, in which a democratically elected leader Mohammad Mosadeq was brought down in coup d’état because he wanted nationalize the all the oil reserve in the country, this move was seen a serious blow by the U.S.A and Britain, given their dependency on the oil from middle east.  It was enough to claim that Britain with help of the U.S overthrew the Mohammad Mosadeq and establishment of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as an absolute ruler.^[ii] Such an outsider invasion was detested by the Iranian and this led to a conflict between the U.S and Iran.

• Nuclear support

Iran’s nuclear program was started in 1950 with the aid of the U.S.A as a part of the Atoms for peace initiative. In 1957, the U.S and Iran signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement. The agreement provides nuclear research and technology to Iran. Eventually, this initiative laid the foundation for its controversial nuclear program.^[iii] In 1957, Reza Shah Pahlavi inaugurated the Tehran Nuclear Research Centre at the University of Tehran and started acquiring new technology from the U.S. During 1968, Iran signed the treaty on Non Proliferation of the nuclear weapon. Iran was also permitted to develop a limited nuclear program in exchange of a promise not to obtain any nuclear weapon.

During the 1963-1967, Iran was enjoying a strong economic growth. But in the background the autocracy of Shah was also flourishing. As this continued to happen, there was animosity toward Shah and the U.S which was building through a mosque with the aid of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Further, in 1964, he was forcefully expelled from the country and eventually he settled in Iraq. Still he continued to speak against U.S and Shah and at that time U.S did not take religious animosity seriously which U.S had to face very serious consequences.

• The Islamic revolution (1979-1989)

In 1979, Iran saw a revolution which is known as the Islamic revolution. While 1979 of Iranian revolution was started as a pluralist uprising against the Shah’s autocracy, it culminated with the victory of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his Islamist disciple. Meanwhile, Millions of people took to the streets and began to protest against the regime of Shah. His rule was largely considered as corrupt and arbitrary by the people. On 16 January 1979, Shah announced that he is leaving Iran to go on vacation. This was considered by the people of Iran as the culmination of the Shah regime. Further, Ayatollah Khomeini, an Islamic preacher who was arrested and expelled by the Shah in 1964, came back to Iran on 1 February and became the supreme leader of the Islamic republic. ^[iv]

• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979- 1981)

During this period, Iran saw a Hostage crisis in which Iranian students annihilated the U.S embassy in Tehran and took hundreds of American hostages. They insisted that the Shah, who was admitted in the U.S for cancer treatment, be deported to Iran to face prosecution for “Crime against people of Iran”.  During this conflict, relations between two nations became worse and formal diplomatic relations have never been reinstated.^[v]

• Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988)

In 1980, war was started between two nations and the U.S. was anxious that Iranian would defeat Iraq and be able to take over the region. The Regan administration furnished Baghdad with intelligence and other resources.^[vi] This led to strain in the relation between the U.S and Iran. In this period Qasem Soleimani joined the Revolutionary Guard Corps and played a major role in fighting against Iraq.

• S declared Iran a sponsor of terrorism

Under the Regan administration Iran was declared a sponsor of terrorism in 1984. The CIA’s documents more than 60 attacks against the US, France and Arabs that were supported by Iran in 1984, including an attack on the U.S embassy in Lebanon.

In 1988, Qasem Soleimani was appointed as a head of the Guard Corp. After this George Bush announced Iran as a “state of exile”.

In 2003 the U.S started to raise its concern alleging that Iran had been trying to develop nuclear weapons and the officer from the international Atomic Energy found evidence of using rich uranium in the plant. After that Iran agreed to stop production of nuclear weapons but after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came into power, he was permitted to restart the nuclear plant. Further, the U.S had imposed sanctions on Iran.^[vii]

• Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015)

After several dialogues between Iran and the U.S, six countries and Tehran signed a historical deal that slowed down the Iran nuclear program in exchange of lifting the sanction against Iran. This landmark deal is known as JCPOA. ^[viii]

In 2018 Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and re imposed the severe sanction on Iran.

The tension escalated between two nations when a rocket attacked on Iraqi military base and killed a U.S contractor. Again, In 2019 U.S retaliated with an air strike in which military head of Iran Qasem Solemaini was killed. This act infuriated the Iranian people and they demanded revenge of this barbaric act. It left the entire world in hysteria, because General Soleimani was a sought-after national hero for Iran, and his death may have long-term consequences for the entire region.

Violation of international laws

Here, we focus on key points about the legal status of those attacks and other conflicts.

Did the act of the U.S of assassinating Qasem Soleimani was unreasonable and against the rule laid down under international law?

• The act of the U.S of killing the other country officer without a clear threat of attack to its autonomy is an illegitimate act of war. U.S official asserted that the act of assassination was a self defense.
• Article 51of the United Nation charter deals with the self defense in which any nation can take legitimate action in the case of clear threat to their autonomy. The nation can only take action when there is imminent threat, no means of choice or no moment for deliberation.^[ix]
• The U.S said in a United Nation meeting that it took pre emptive measures to protect the autonomy of the U.S.A from imminent threat.
• Conclusively, whether the act of the U.S was reasonable or not, it is difficult to determine it can only be decided upon judicial intervention.

Whether Iran had breached the nuclear treaty?

• The main objective of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is to confine the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran is also a part of this treaty but Iran clandestinely produced the nuclear weapon and denied all allegations made against it. In 2002 under pressure from the international community it showed the nuclear program to IAEA.
• It had found that Iran had violated several provisions of the treaty specifically related to uranium import which was imported from China in 1991 and subsequently sent for the production of nuclear weapons and Iran had kept it concealed from the IAEA.^[x]
• Therefore, it is apparent that Iran has breached the treaty and it was not observed in accordance with the provisions of the Convention and thus effective judicial redress procedures should be preferred.

Did the act of the U.S.A of unilaterally withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action be breached by international law or not?

• From the beginning it was clear that JCPOA was not a treaty and therefore it was not based on any principle of pacta sunt servanda on which treaties are made obligatory.
• Indeed, it was an agreement between two states and these agreements are often political in nature at global level and parties have the right to withdraw without any violation of international laws.
• The main argument was that the agreement incorporated into UN Security Council resolution 2231 (2015). Further, Article 25 and 48(A) of the UN charter deal with the agreement which is binding in nature whereas the only recommendation of UNSC cannot be binding in nature.^[xi]
• Now it is upon the discretion of the International Court of Justice to determine the matter. Whether the agreement was binding in nature or not.

Political and economic consequences of U.S and Iran conflict

The strife between both nations has an adverse impact on global politics and economics. The recent escalation between the U.S and Iran dissidence has a negative impact on international geopolitics and economics. Though the strife between both the nations has been seen momentarily with the absence of a war, such volatile examples set by the both the nations have culminated in diplomatic consequences. After the assassination of the general Qasem Soleimini, U.S has realizes that its influence in the Middle East on the verge of declining and the others super power like Russia and China have been increasing their influence in Middle East. The countries like Russia and China who are in the periphery of Iran are taking advantage of this situation by supplying war material to Iran. It has also been observed that deepening rivalry between both the nations would have resulted in catastrophe for the Gulf nations. The intensified animosity between two nations has resulted in trade barriers and also massive recession throughout the world. The harsh sanction imposed on Iran oil’s trade is also the cause of the deteriorating economy of Iran. It has been observed that President Trump’s main intent behind annulment of foreign investment in Iran was to impede the main source of revenue generation. Further, the economic implication between both nations has been suffered by the whole world because the Middle East area is the largest producer of crude oil and after the recent strife between new nations had led to higher prices of crude oil. Due to conflict between these two nations India’s GDP is on the verge of decline because India mainly imports oil from the Middle East especially Iran after the sanction imposed by the U.S on Iran, India is facing major blow due to increase in prices. The faceoff between the U.S and Iran also undermined the security of the route of ships sailing in the strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is a shallow body of water that links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman, flowing into the Arab Sea and is the most important oil access point in the world, as 21 million barrels travel through that strait every day, worth $1.2 billion in oil. Iran in retaliation could hinder the transportation of the oil and disrupt the oil supply and it could lead to surge in prices of oil.

Therefore, the contention between the U.S and Iran is a threat to the oil industry and it will inhibit the current trade relation and it could deteriorate the condition of many countries.

Conclusion

The rivalry between two nations has been going on for over half a century and played a very major role in changing the way international politics and ties operate throughout the world. The reason behind the conflict is involvement of the U.S in Middle East politics which is censured by the different world leaders. The contention between both the countries also have major implications on the geopolitics and economy. In the conflict neither country gains importance rather it causes casualty to the people and imbues loathe sentiment against each other. Diplomats all around the world should focus on collaboration rather than conflict.

References

^[i] Bill, James A. The Eagle and the Lion: The Tragedy of American-Iranian Relations. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988

^[ii] Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. (Hoboken: J. Wiley & Sons, 2003).

^[iii] Roe, Sam (28 January 2007). “An atomic threat made in America”. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 1 July 2009

^[iv]  “History of Iran: Islamic Revolution of 1979”. Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 2 April 2016.

^[v] Abrahamian, Ervand. “Iran in Revolution: The Opposition Forces.” MERIP 75/76.Mar. – Apr. (1979): 3-8

^[vi] Murray, Donette (2009). US Foreign Policy and Iran: American–Iranian Relations since the Islamic Revolution p. 8. Routledge

^[viii]  Mehta, S. (2015). “P5+1 – Iran Nuclear Agreement – A Silver Lining in US-Iran Relations.” Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, Vol. 16, Iss. 2.

^[ix] Charter of the United Nations, Article 51

^[x] IRAN UNITED STATES CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, Jan 19 1981, http://www.iusct.net/

^[xi] Charter of the United Nations, Article 25, Article 48

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: