Iran Has the Right to Defend Itself

Friday Prayers in Tehran, March 6, 2026 -- Tasnim News Agency, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

By Ali Abutalebi

On the last day of February, the United States and Israel launched a new round of military strikes against Iran. In the opening minutes of the operation, the residence of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei, was targeted. The attack resulted in his assassination and the deaths of several members of his family, including his 14-month-old granddaughter, Sayyidah Zahra.

The assassination of a sitting head of state—along with members of his family—marked an extraordinary escalation and immediately transformed the confrontation with Iran into something far more serious than a conventional military clash.

The strikes were not limited to leadership targets. In the southern Iranian cities of Minab and Lamerd, a primary school and a sports complex were struck, killing several children—young victims who are widely regarded in Iran as martyrs.

In response, Iran’s armed forces—including both the national army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)—launched retaliatory strikes, targeting a number of sites across the region that had long been identified as potential military objectives.

In the aftermath, many diplomatic statements repeated a familiar and seemingly principled phrase: “The territorial integrity of Iran and other countries must be respected.” Two of these statements deserve closer attention: the official statement of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela—which was later removed shortly after its release—and a message posted by the President of Cuba on his official Telegram channel.

These two cases are particularly worth examining because the governments of Venezuela and Cuba have historically avoided the kind of neutral diplomatic language often used by other states—statements that typically urge “both sides to exercise restraint.”

Venezuela described Iran’s retaliatory strikes as “indebidas y condenables”—improper and condemnable—while the Cuban president called for respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states and urged an end to actions that harm civilian populations or damage civilian infrastructure in the Persian Gulf countries.

On paper, this formulation appears balanced and consistent with international law. Yet political reality is often far more complex than diplomatic language suggests.

The principle of territorial integrity cannot be reduced to a rhetorical formula detached from material conditions. Sovereignty is not merely a legal abstraction; it is a political responsibility. A state that claims sovereignty must exercise effective control over how its territory is used—especially when that territory becomes a platform for military aggression against another country.

When a state allows foreign military powers to use its territory, airspace, or infrastructure to plan and launch attacks against another sovereign nation, two logical conclusions follow. Either that state no longer exercises genuine sovereignty, or it has effectively joined the conflict alongside those powers. Neutrality cannot coexist with facilitating acts of war.

International law itself recognizes this distinction. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, states possess an inherent right of self-defense when an armed attack occurs against them. This right does not depend on diplomatic approval or political sympathy; it arises from the factual reality of force being used. Self-defense is therefore not an exception to international norms but one of their foundational principles.

Blaming Iran for responding militarily ignores this fundamental reality. Responsibility does not end with the actor that launches the strike. Those who materially facilitate aggression—by hosting foreign bases, providing logistical corridors, or integrating their security systems into external military operations—cannot simultaneously claim neutrality while benefiting from protection under the language of sovereignty.

Several Persian Gulf states spend billions of dollars purchasing weapons systems and security guarantees from the United States while presenting themselves as fully independent actors. In reality, such arrangements often outsource national defense and embed foreign military interests within domestic territory. In effect, these states use their own wealth to buy American weapons that ultimately serve to protect the presence and interests of U.S. forces rather than their own sovereignty.

This contradiction has deep historical roots. Much of the contemporary Western Asia state system emerged from imperial restructuring following the First World War, when borders and security architectures were shaped according to imperial strategic interests rather than genuine self-determination. The legacy of that order continues to limit the autonomy of states whose security policies remain structurally tied to Western powers.

Against this background, the confrontation surrounding Iran carries a wider historical meaning. Iran’s struggle is increasingly perceived across parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America as part of a broader question facing the Global South: whether post-colonial societies possess the right to develop independent political, technological, and security capabilities without external coercion.

The Global South is not merely a geographic category, but a historical condition shaped by colonial domination and unequal integration into the international system. Many nations formally enjoy sovereignty while remaining constrained by military dependence, sanctions regimes, or asymmetric power relations. When non-Western states attempt to achieve strategic autonomy, their actions are frequently framed as destabilizing threats rather than as expressions of sovereign equality.

The implicit message is difficult to ignore: military strength and technological power are considered legitimate when monopolized by dominant powers, yet dangerous when pursued by states outside that hierarchy. The question therefore becomes unavoidable—who has decided that nations of the Global South do not possess the right to empower themselves?

For many observers, the pressure placed upon Iran reflects a broader expectation that independent states should ultimately accept subordination within an existing global order. The demand is not merely policy change but strategic surrender—compliance enforced through sanctions, isolation, and, when necessary, military pressure.

If such a precedent is normalized, its implications extend far beyond Iran. The defeat of a state attempting to preserve strategic autonomy would signal to other nations of the Global South that sovereignty exists only within limits defined by the U.S.-led order. Conversely, the preservation of independent decision-making affirms the possibility of a more plural and balanced international order.

A state cannot be expected to absorb attacks indefinitely while the infrastructure enabling those attacks operates freely beyond its borders. If sovereignty carries real meaning, it must include the right to neutralize threats directed against one’s existence.

Therefore, the question is not whether territorial integrity should be respected—it should. The real question is whether this principle can be invoked selectively: demanded for some states while ignored when their territory becomes a staging ground for aggression against others.

In this sense, Iran’s right to defend itself is not a deviation from international order. It is a direct consequence of it—and, for much of the Global South, a test of whether sovereignty in the twenty-first century remains a universal right or a privilege reserved for a U.S.-aligned bloc.

Ali Abutalebi has been the executive director of Mazmoon Books since 2005. He founded the Iranian Campaign for Solidarity with Cuba, has worked as publication director at House of Latin America (HOLA), and authored several articles for the Iranian press and political websites, mostly focused on Latin American progressive movements. Ali published a book on Cuba titled Rest in Peace Ernesto.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.