it is the economy and technology that have made these assassinations possible. if there is no economic and technological diplomatic support, how can they act on such a large scale ? mr. netanyahu will immediately return from america and several sensitive assassinations will be carried out in the region, so if the united nations comes and imposes sanctions, it will take the economic tool. if in diplomatic areas and. it is possible to get diplomatic support from the zionist regime, but none of this is happening, but you can see at a glance in the double standard that these sanctions are being formed by the united nations against iran again and again, but it has been 10 months now. the international community is witnessing that not only an action against the zionist regime in the killing of civilian women and children, which, in the words of the supreme leader of the revolution, is very beautiful. separation in international law

, why people are killed without even firing a shot, well, when these things happen and there are so many double standards, in my opinion , the countries of the region, the member countries of the islamic compraz organization, should express their non-commitment and give an opinion. they are acting like themselves, the world organization is currently suffering from verb omission. verb omission is a kind of violation . offensive silence when crimes against humanity and genocide are being committed , it is a verb, so now the regional organizations should be active, the mechanism of the regional organizations should be used, for example, articles 52 and 53 of the charter, that's it, mr. doctor, now let's prove our assumption in terms of international law dimensions. who was a diplomatic and political figure for an official invitation to

a country has traveled there, negotiated , was an official guest, or something like being martyred in a terrorist operation. now suppose that all this is proven in the international legal system, which , according to the doctor, acts in such a double manner. what is the point of proving this? when benas, for example, is childish with a regime that is openly committing genocide or committing war crimes, it is not dealt with as it should be. the international law system said that we should prove these things, then after proving these things, now we should try to be persistent in the international authorities. even if these questions are proven, we don't really have a correct legal answer we came to prove that this terrorist act by in fact, a group that is affiliated with or under

the control of the zionist regime , we even proved that the regime itself is behind this or not. even beyond that, it was proved that this was actually an armed attack on our territory against a third party has already been done, so what do we want to do, we will check the options, we want to go to the security council in fact. the security council held a meeting as you said, but the united states, america , england, i don't know what position france showed in general, the composition of that council is an unfair composition, exactly , it is an unfair composition, it is an undemocratic composition , and in my opinion, the composition is cruel. well, here, in fact, the security council cannot do anything for you, but let's reverse this. let's assume

that we haven't taken any action yet , they are actually showing signs that i don't know if you should be restrained, so why don't they actually say this to the zionist regime, why the warnings that are actually being given are not about the zionist regime, for example let's say we go to the international judicial authority for example, if we want to go to the international court of justice, now apart from the argument that we do not recognize this regime and filing a lawsuit against a regime that we do not recognize in terms of our rights. it is another discussion, but assuming all of this , you should find a jurisdictional basis that your defendant accepted for the international court of justice to deal with, which we actually do not have such a case, which means that you are dealing with an ineffective system of international law. the persian interpretation of it is to say that you expect healing from an imamzadeh, but nothing can be done, so if in fact

if a country wants to hand over its security, its survival, and its horizontal integrity to these international organizations, i think it is a lost rhyme , and while we still have to adhere to it and document our own behavior, we don't want to say that because others in fact, they violate it, so we also violate it, not while we follow the provisions of the charter of our international obligations, but at least the capacities that exist , for example, what i think comes to my mind and according to the petitions that you made at the beginning of your service. if we consider those two assumptions, if it is an armed attack that is, the use of military force against the israeli regime in our territory is the right of legitimate defense, and it actually goes back to our military power and

what we want to do. legitimately, you can take countermeasures , see at what level there are conditions, in fact, legitimate defense is one. first of all, there is a question of urgency, there is a question of necessity , there is a question of proportionality, and in fact, in order to ward off danger, that means you must stop until you have warded off that threat or that danger. if you want to continue beyond that, this itself is actually a it is a violation, it is a criminal act, but in the second assumption , if you assume that this is through a terrorist act and it does not reach the threshold of an armed attack, in my opinion, here, of course, this is my own interpretation. i don't agree, but i want to say that we must look in a general context, we mean the islamic republic of iran, with the accumulation of terrorist acts or sub-terrorist acts under the support of a

regime and vandalism in various forms, which means what against, in fact, what against our infrastructure. places and what has been done against our people. that if we do this in fact, if we look at them as a whole, in my opinion , this creates the right for the islamic republic of iran to stop this series of actions, and in order to stop this series of actions , a proportionate response must be made, and at the same time, in compliance with those requirements, the use of military force , if not in fact, if we want to have very traditional interpretations, we say, well, this is a terrorist act and it will not reach that threshold. armed, so we should not do anything, it means that we should expect more bitter actions every day. therefore, while we consider those legal guidelines or those legal standards you should

see a definite answer and again within the framework of international law, we do not want to say that international law is bad, international law is necessary, but international law in its current form is reality. it is that it cannot even defend itself, to the extent that it wants to defend the security of the countries, in fact, alongside you , what is our insistence on the fact that we do not want to show ourselves as a country that does not follow any rules and laws, or at least that we do not adhere to what we have signed, but the regime in front of you is doing this, it actually shows the nature of that regime. you see, that regime is an imposed regime, but we are a country with a history. we are civilized and historical. we are not stupid. a country that cannot actually be called a country is an entity that is formed with a declaration and fraudulently and is imposed by force and continues by force. the advisory theory of the international court of justice, which

was issued 13 days ago , says the same about the continuation of the occupation. it says that this continuation of the occupation is against international law and the country. for the countries, it actually creates responsibility and obligation, the main judicial pillar of the united nations says that the countries they should not recognize this state of occupation , they should not help the zionist regime, the occupying regime, in fact, they should try to return it to the borders of 1967, at least from the point of view of the united nations, but from the point of view of the palestinians, when you look at it, they are the right holders and say no until 1948. in fact, we are illegal. obviously, this is actually the existing structure, that the aggressor

has a safer margin than the oppressed or the victim. and places violating different people, where in fact , an international organization wants to get involved in this , but the country in fact. a weak or a third world country does even a very small action , the european union, which has no business at all , has nothing to do with it, actually imposes sanctions against it, but where is it? in fact, the sanctions of the european union against the zionist regime, the sanctions of the united nations against the zionist regime, dr. khan correctly pointed out why the seventh chapter about the actions of the zionist regime is not activated now, because there is actually a power behind the zionist regime, which is a kind of genius. it strengthens the norm or non-normality in international law . it is justice that in the composition of the united nations security council, the countries that are permanent members

have the right to have nuclear weapons, which means that they have the right to have this weapon, and in the same way , they have the unfair right of veto. they should have this right wherever it is in their favor, no matter if they support it or not, it has nothing to do with international systems. we say that the agent must always in order to act, competence means to be competent. well, the united nations wants to create a democracy. the principle is that it must be based on democracy. is the united nations really based on democracy? if it is based on democracy, why should the vote of one country or the opposition of one country be the fate of the international community ? change it in fact, this means that it is not based on democracy and it is not fair either. it cannot seek justice. i meant that we need

the rules of international law, but at the same time, the existing rules of international law, the existing structure of international law, are neither fair nor efficient. it is democratic, so it is necessary to move towards correcting these things, very well, but in general, you believe that the islamic republic of iran has the right to legitimate defense, based on the existing legal articles, and act according to the interpretation that you have proposed. thank you very much, mr. azimi , an international law expert, is also on our communication line. hello and good night. in the name of allah, the most merciful. i am also at the service of your excellency and your respected experts, as well as dear viewers. thank you, mr. azimi, for your opinion in terms of law. international this what is the nature of the terrorist act and how much is the hand of the islamic republic.

it leaves his life open for punishment for a countermeasure or, to put it more accurately, bloodlust at the hands of the islamic republic of iran. yes , you see, this action is considered a violation of international law in several ways, which your respected experts must have addressed. i only pointed out a few points. in this context, i would like to point out that article 2, clause 4 of the united nations charter states that the members of the organization. in pursuit of the goals of the united nations , they must observe the following principles, the fourth paragraph of which states that in their international relations, they should refrain from resorting to threats and it is very clear that this action was carried out by a country in the sovereign territory of the islamic republic of iran. therefore, this action

is considered a clear violation of article 2, clause 4 of the united nations charter. no one has any doubts about this. one point that exists is that we have a resolution regarding the issue of aggression under the title of the resolution defining aggression until 2001, terrorist operations and measures. terrorism is not considered under the concept of rape, at least. he said it is possible but we didn't have anything in written form. in 2001, a resolution was issued by the un security council called resolution 13 73 after the twin towers case, and it clearly declares terrorism as an act of aggression and declares terrorism as an act of aggression. there he clearly says that terrorist acts are a threat to international peace and security . then the very interesting point is that

it emphasizes the inherent right of countries and individuals to defend themselves in this resolution and then specifies that countries should deal with this threat of peace and peace and the international security states that they must fight against such terrorist actions with any action, and then the security council. he also wants the countries to cooperate with each other by fighting against such actions, that is, we can now unite and cooperate with the same resistance front, that is, iraq, yemen, and lebanon against the terrorist act of the zionist regime. let's face it, this cooperation is exactly in accordance with international law and another point that is actually considered innovative and new in this resolution is that it states that every country has the duty to

refrain from organizing, inciting or participating in terrorist acts in another country. see the resolutions of the un security council that are approved under the seventh chapter are binding for all countries. in this resolution 13 73, it states that every country has the duty to refrain from acting or even participating in terrorist acts in another country. the zionist regime is involved in the attack on our consulate in syria and in the targeting of our nuclear space, as well as in all other terrorist acts such as the attack on martyr fakhrizadeh. these clauses are also considered a violation of this resolution and even the security council has made it mandatory, that is, the security council has the duty to convene a meeting based on chapter seven, like other acts of aggression , recognize this act as aggression, condemn it, and

take action. saying that due to the structure of the security council, with the authoritarian structure that exists there , the security council is practically unable to do such a thing. now, the point that is raised here is that when something called aggression is mentioned, that is , it is considered an act of aggression, the element of legitimate defense is raised against it, and the element of legitimate defense is in article 51. the united nations charter has defined it as an inherent right in this resolution and it has been recognized and seen as an inherent right of countries. now the question is the type of defense that countries can do against a terrorist act . if he attacks his sovereignty or the land of a country, the appropriate defense is that, naturally, the armed forces

will stand in front of him and prevent the aggressors from moving and return them to their own land. now the question is this. in the case of terrorism, which is considered a repulsive action, it is done once and that's it what is the international procedure in dealing with terrorist acts? in order to check this , we have to see how the united states of america acted when this qatar letter was issued, when it was issued, and when it was issued , we can follow a procedure based on the same. let's design a procedure , let's say that this procedure exists. the united states of america attacked afghanistan and knew it was its right to destroy al-qaeda as a legitimate defense. then they captured bin laden and killed him, and even according to what was said, throwing his body into the sea. the procedure and this action of the united states of america case there was no opposition from any country, so the defense of

defense against terrorism is that the country that is the victim of the terrorist must use all of itself to destroy the roots of the terrorist that threatens it , the source of the terrorist. to destroy the necessary punishment for the country that has committed such an act , so that such action will not be carried out again, the legitimate defense finds this concept , so we even have the right to attack the zionist regime with all our power. let's attack to punish benjamin netanyahu order i want to say here that some people may say that we do not take these actions as a countermeasure against copper. this is not defined in the dictionary as counter to copper, but

it is considered as a defense. eliminate for how long, article 51 of course says until the un security council enters, well, naturally , the un security council will not enter. when the security council does not enter, the victim country has the inherent right to defend itself with all its power in the form of an all-out action that it can. eliminate the source of terrorism and do something this is the maximum thing to do so that terrorist acts are no longer possible. it is whatever is legitimate that we can do, the type and manner of which is determined by the country's officials. thank you very much , sir . regarding the capacities that exist in international law for the country that is being violated, thank you. we

will say goodbye to you, mrs. doctor. now a terrorist act is being carried out, state terrorism what is happening is that a government and a regime are behind this incident . how much is required? to be a bit more clear about how much we are obliged to a regime that does not adhere to any of these principles, we now want to act completely according to the laws of international standards . one point that we must pay attention to is that all the requirements of international law are related to the relationship between the two legitimate governments that were established based on the legitimate standards of international law . if we consider a government as an occupier at all , we do not give any credit to its existence in terms of international law and custom

, so are we obliged to observe international rules regarding this government at all? style-based. there was no international resolution 181. in 1948, the land of palestine , which was in the hands of the trusteeship council, was returned to the palestinians. they divided it, about 56 percent were given to the israelis , and 434 percent were given to the palestinians. % at west bank and gaza strip. is it really the regime of the occupying regime that we now

have about 600 un resolutions on the occupied territories from 1967 onwards, saying that the power of the occupying government is the power of the occupying power, this is in the text of the un resolutions, but we say that it has been an occupation since 1948, so when someone who he is an occupier. the same operation on the 7th of october was against the occupier , it was not an aggression, it was not an attack by hamas , it was just a defense that happened for the sake of liberation, that is, the work of liberation. internationally, about whom, about which system, you are arguing that it is not at all necessary in this situation that you want to be within the framework of rights. we should behave the way we behave towards the occupiers , as they said, until the center of danger is removed, until the occupation is removed, as far as the security council is concerned, it

belongs to the governments of the two deep and legitimate international organizations. there is a theory that many professors today believe that when there is an occupation, all the annexes to the geneva conventions of 1949 should help the liberation movements. do it and the one who doesn't help has committed a crime . now you can see 50 uprisings in the us congress about whether it is really based on international rules and happening in america. if the people should, if the people, now the people , according to the supreme leader of the revolution, the american students and many european countries

are standing in the right historical place, they are actually supporting the victims , but there, when the person who is responsible for the killing of tens of thousands of civilians, who none have a military role at all. when this is encouraged, are all the documents between? because it is actually a place of terror and a place of sacrifice hey, this can be changed. if such an action that happened to mr. haniyeh was carried out in tehran in a european country, it would be carried out in the united states. what would the reaction of those countries and the united nations be? . where is he and what action does he have the right to take ? thank you very much, mr. doctor. we

have 34 minutes. between those systems it is not considered international. see, again, i think that the occupation regime itself, in fact, when we talk about the geneva conventions, what protocols, what rules are related to the occupation, we are talking about international law, so we can actually go beyond international law. to be international means the right to resist, which is actually created for the people of occupied lands, and countries can actually support them. he talks about the international law that the occupier is not there he is talking, but, in fact, he is talking that yes, you are talking to an occupier like this. you have

to behave, that is, international law is telling us , for example, the international court of justice comes and specifies 5 facts in its recent advisory theory, one of which is, for example, that governments should not recognize this situation, in fact, the occupation situation. they should not help israel if it wants to continue this situation. well, this is what international law says, so our capacity is actually in the heart of international law, and we should use it. now, in my opinion, islamic countries are the best opportunity is for him to get out of that passive state, because here we actually see a unity from an ideological point of view . in fact, the occupiers should rise up, the organization of the islamic conference should

act now, the islamic countries that actually recognized the zionist regime should expel their ambassadors, in fact return their own ambassadors , see if today was yesterday or today, the turkish embassy in tel aviv raised its flag at half-mast. belafle yes, protesting a lot, saying that if you want to sympathize, go to erdogan, for example, in turkey, in fact, it shows that if islamic countries are really united. naturally, we will not see this boldness and arrogance from the zionist regime and even from the united states , as you can see, for example, the emirates of qatar and several other islamic countries, well, they did not condemn this incident . the rules of the game mean that there are some weaknesses in the rules of the game, but it still has capacities that we can do let's use them and the last point is that according to rumi, if you do evil with evil, then it's different. what if we

want to follow the same path as the zionist regime, then what will be the difference between us and a regime that kills children? in fact , you did not ask for blood in rejecting a different action. no, no, those actions should only be emphasized on the military option. don't do it, it means that a package is actually a package that includes many diplomatic measures, hard legal and soft legal. let's actually put all these together so that we can have a good achievement. very thank you very much, thank you very much, dr. njandi, i am very grateful for the legal analysis that we presented, dr. aminzadeh, we also used the official analysis, and i am also very grateful to mr. azimi for coming to our communication line, and i hope that you will benefit from tonight's discussion. have a good night and god bless you.

in the name of god, hello ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the world. today, in the first case of tonight's program , we will examine what the zionist regime is waiting for iran's response with elijah magnir, a military analyst and expert .