China strongly condemns US attack on Iran, foreign ministry says
The move seriously violates the United Nations Charter and worsens tensions in the Middle East, the ministry said in a statement on its website.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran warns of ‘consequences' of silence and inaction over US strikes on nuclear sites
Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi on Monday said that silence and inaction over the US strikes on the country's three nuclear sites 'will have widespread consequences'. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, during an event recently.(REUTERS) In a conversation with his French counterpart, Jean-Noël Barrot, Araghchi condemned the US strikes on the Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz nuclear facilities, calling the military action a violation of all international laws and regulations, including the United Nations Charter. According to a statement issued on his Telegram channel, Abbas Araghchi stated that the 'silence and inaction' of countries in the face of the aggression will have widespread consequences and outcomes for all countries. The Telegram release added that Barrot expressed regret over the US strikes and denied any involvement in their planning and execution. The French foreign minister expressed his concern about the escalation of tensions in the region after the strikes and called for the continuation of talks between Iran and Europe. Iran considering bill to suspend cooperation with IAEA According to state media, a parliamentary bill to suspend Iran's cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is under consideration. The reports were confirmed by Ruhollah Motefakerzadeh, a member of parliament's praesidium. Iranian media also reported Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf stating that the proposed bill would suspend the country's cooperation with the IAEA until Tehran got objective guarantees of professional behaviour from the agency. "We in the parliament are seeking to pass a bill that would suspend Iran's cooperation with the IAEA until we have objective guarantees of the professional behaviour of this international organisation," Qalibaf said about the bill. The speaker added that Tehran was not looking to develop any sort of nuclear weapons. "The world clearly saw that the Atomic Energy Agency has not fulfilled any of its obligations and has become a political tool," he added.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Presidents' ordering military action without Congress' approval has become routine. Here's why.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to order strikes in Iran — among the most consequential he has made as commander in chief — is the latest example of a U.S. president's taking military action without first seeking congressional approval. And experts say that, while his power over American armed forces isn't absolute, there's most likely little lawmakers will do. Trump is supposed to submit to Congress a legal justification for having bombed Iran's nuclear facilities within 48 hours after the operation began. Unlike tangible consequences Trump has faced for other moves in which he tested the bounds of executive power — such as court rulings against him — any price he might pay for this decision would largely play out in the American political arena and on the world stage, where the U.S. reputation is on the line. 'Presidents over the last 25 years have certainly been stretching the envelope of presidential authority to use force,' John Bellinger, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told NBC News. 'Using force more and more, deploying the military more and more, without congressional authority — and Congress, with a few persistent objectors, has simply acquiesced in that.' The limits on presidential power to use military force are set out in sections of the U.S. Constitution, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the United Nations Charter. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear: Congress — and no other part of the federal government — has the power to declare war. But that's something Congress hasn't formally done in more than 80 years, since World War II. While Congress has approved what are called Authorizations of Military Force and appropriated funds to assist in ongoing conflicts, its ability to control when the nation is at war has been diminished, in part by its own actions, while the power of the office of the president has expanded. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 is a law designed to provide a check on the president's power to involve the United States in military action without the consent of Congress. It was passed over President Richard Nixon's veto in the wake of the Vietnam War, which Congress never actually declared as a war, though it did authorize force in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. According to the War Powers Resolution, 'in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced' when war hasn't been declared, the president has 48 hours to notify, in writing, the speaker of the House and the Senate president pro tempore. The act requires that the notification include why the president took the action, the authority under which it was taken and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' And the resolution also says any time a president uses the armed forces without notifying Congress beforehand, that use must be terminated within 60 days. Bellinger said any notification to Congress that Trump sends, which Bellinger told NBC News the Justice Department is likely to prepare, will probably rely on the authority granted to the president in Article II of the Constitution, which makes the president the commander in chief. President Joe Biden cited Article II in 2021 after he ordered strikes in Iraq and Syria that he said were targeting an 'Iranian-backed militia group responsible for recent attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.' Though Congress acted after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam to restrain presidents in their use of military force, recent decades have seen presidents push against those restraints. On March 23, 1999, the Senate approved NATO airstrikes against what was then Yugoslavia to force a Serbian withdrawal from the province of Kosovo. But when the strikes began 24 hours later, the House had yet to approve the resolution, and a month later, in a tie vote, it rejected the Senate resolution amid increased concerns of greater U.S. military involvement in the area. In March 2011, a coalition of NATO forces, which included the United States, began a military campaign to intervene in the Libyan civil war to protect civilians. While President Barack Obama ordered it, he didn't seek advance approval from Congress. By June, the House had passed a resolution calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the region and demanded that the Obama administration explain why it didn't ask Congress for permission first. In April 2017, during Trump's first term, he didn't seek congressional authorization before he ordered a missile strike in Syria in response to the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons. 'It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons,' he said in televised remarks after the strikes. Bellinger, who helped draft Authorizations for Military Force under President George W. Bush, said it isn't always that way. On Jan. 12, 1991, the Senate voted in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, after President George H.W. Bush asked it to do so. In September 2001 and again in October 2002, President George W. Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of armed force, first in response to the Sept. 11 attacks and then to target Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi government. 'To strike a country like Iran, I think this does go far beyond what other presidents have done,' Bellinger said. Congress, however, may not have the appetite to fight Trump over it. 'Given that a lot of people in Congress tend not to want to buck the president or obviously some of them agree with his actions anyway,' Curtis Bradley, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, said in an interview, 'it seems unlikely at the moment that Congress would, you know, use its statutory powers to try to end or restrict the conflict.' U.S. courts are also unlikely to get involved. The judicial branch has limited authority over a president when it comes to his decisions about military action and the use of force. 'The lower courts, when they get these cases, tend to say, sorry, this is very complicated,' Bradley said. 'They say it's really to be resolved by the political institutions and not the courts.' 'Even if it is unconstitutional, I don't see it's likely that courts will be the ones to police that,' he added. International law, including the U.N. Charter, lays out very clearly what is and isn't justified when a country decides to use force. Article II of the U.N. Charter orders 'all members' to settle their international disputes 'by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.' While a separate section of the U.N. Charter allows for military action to be taken in self-defense, experts say, that argument will be harder for the Trump administration to make in this scenario. 'The idea that you could just ... attack because, in the long run, you think your strategic interests will be harmed does not fit with the charter under anybody's reasonable definition of self-defense,' Bradley said. But what does a violation of the U.N. Charter mean? Not much, experts say. 'It wouldn't be the first time, unfortunately, where the U.S. is doing something that probably violates the charter,' Bradley said. 'That ends up being more about diplomacy, rather than something that would directly stop a president from acting.' Bellinger believes that even without any direct domestic or international legal consequences, the implications of Trump's decisions are wide-ranging. 'It's going to be more of a political cost at home, and it's going to be more of a reputational cost for the United States around the world.' This article was originally published on
Newsroom
7 hours ago
- Newsroom
Middle East military action ‘extremely worrying', but no call yet on bombing
This story first appeared on RNZ and is republished with permission The foreign affairs minister says the Government will gather facts before taking a position on the United States' airstrikes on Iran. The US attacked three Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, with President Donald Trump saying the country's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been 'completely and totally obliterated.' Trump said Iran 'must now make peace' or there would be further attacks. In response, Iran has accused the US of launching 'a dangerous war,' and of violating the United Nations Charter and international law. But on Sunday afternoon, shortly after the attack was launched, Foreign Affairs Ministers Winston Peters said the New Zealand government was waiting for the facts. 'Look, this has just happened. These are circumstances in which we will first of all gather the facts, and the circumstances, before we give our opinion.' Peters said the crisis was 'extremely worrying' and New Zealand would continue to call for diplomacy and dialogue. 'Ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying, and it's critical further escalation is avoided. We strongly support efforts towards diplomacy and urge all parties to return to talks,' he said. 'Iran's nuclear activities have long worried New Zealand. We want Iran to comply with its international obligations. Our concern is that further military action is not going to deliver a sustainable solution to this problem. 'We're a long way from the region, but New Zealand will continue to convey these measures in favour of diplomacy and dialogue directly to Iran, Israel, and the other parties involved in possible talks.' Labour's defence spokesperson Peeni Henare backed Peters' calls for a return to talks, but said the government should acknowledge the US breached international law and be 'perhaps a bit stronger' in the first instance. Henare said Trump's statements had made it 'quite clear' what had happened. 'Countries can't call for peace and de-escalation, only to take the action that's been taken.' Waikato University law professor Alexander Gillespie said the airstrikes were 'clearly' illegal in terms of international law. 'There's nowhere in the UN charter that says you can bomb someone who won't negotiate with you. But whether you get to a point where that is actually condemned is going to be very different,' he said. 'There's the theory of international law, with the UN Charter, and then there's the reality of international politics at the moment, which means that America will not be condemned internationally by the Security Council or even through the International Court of Justice.' The Prime Minister is heading to NATO this week. New Zealand is not a member, but in recent years has been invited as a partner along with fellow Indo-Pacific Four nations Australia, Japan and South Korea. While Christopher Luxon would be 'on the margins,' Gillespie expected he would be watching closely to see what like-minded partners were saying. 'This is an act which is not self-defence, and even if you argued it was pre-emptive self-defence, it wasn't necessary because there were other options of diplomacy still open. It will create difficulties if we speak out and say that, I don't think we're in a position to do that right now, for fear of the reaction that you get from America.' Australia's government has already issued a statement on the airstrikes. 'We have been clear that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security,' the statement said. 'We note the US president's statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy.' Defence Force plane leaves today The Government is sending a C-130J Hercules plane to the Middle East, with Defence Force and Foreign Affairs personnel, to assist New Zealanders stranded in Iran and Israel. Defence minister Judith Collins said the plane was a contingency, and would not be able to aid in evacuation flights until airspace restrictions in the region eased. In the meantime, those who were able to leave via a safe route were urged to do so. Peters said the flights would get people to a safe place. 'We're not bringing them home. We're getting them to where they can make arrangements to get home.' The Government has been warning New Zealanders in the region to leave for a long time, Peters said. The number of New Zealanders registered as being in Iran or Israel had increased in recent days. The decision to send the Hercules was made even before knowledge of the airstrikes had come through. 'Our anxiety was enunciated and formulated into policy, warnings, and collections of views months ago. We've been saying it, and it's a sad circumstance here, but we said 'look this is very dangerous, get out,'' Peters said. Citing security reasons, Collins would not say where the plane and personnel would be based. Both Henare and Gillespie supported the move. 'I think if we're ready and on standby, at the very least, to make sure we can respond to our citizens and their needs, and also those of our diplomatic staff, I think that's a really smart move,' Henare said. Gillespie said sending a plane was prudent in case the situation worsened quickly, and the damage became more indiscriminate.
