Government Kidnapping: America’s Dangerous Model in front of Other Powers

TEHRAN (Defapress) - The United States recently carried out an air and ground offensive on Venezuelan territory, and analyses show that the aim of this attack is for the United States to dominate Venezuela's oil reserves.

Global imperialism is trying to dominate independent countries’ oil resources through harassment and psychological measures, and then military attacks, and the US President’s positions are based on this basis. Donald Trump announced on Saturday that US forces have carried out a “massive attack” against Venezuela and have arrested the country’s President, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores. The pair will now stand trial in New York on charges of terrorism and drug trafficking, which the US president has accused Maduro of running a “terrorist organisation”.

However, the legality of the operation has been questioned, with even some of Trump’s allies saying it violates international law. International law experts who spoke to the Guardian believe the US may have breached the UN Charter, which prohibits states from using force against other states or violating their sovereignty. International affairs analyst Jeffrey Robertson says the attack violates Article 2(4) of the Charter, and the US has committed the crime of aggression, the same crime that the Nuremberg Tribunal called the supreme crime. International law expert Susan Breau says the attack could only have been legal if either the Security Council had authorised it or the US had acted in self-defence, but neither of them is available.

Washington will likely claim that it acted in self-defense against the threat of Maduro’s terrorist organization. But experts say there is no evidence that Venezuela is imminently attacking the United States, and drug trafficking does not constitute an armed attack. Also, assuming this is true, the Security Council can impose sanctions such as trade restrictions or arms embargoes, but the United States is a permanent member with a veto and will veto any action against it.

If the United States goes unpunished, this could set a dangerous precedent for powers such as China and Russia, and even countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany and France. It will also further undermine the credibility of the Security Council.

The unilateral and unjustified US military action has even provoked protests from traditional US allies; UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer says in this regard: his country was not involved in the attack and has emphasized the need to adhere to international law. Of course, this does not seem to be a serious condemnation, because international law experts say: America's allies have a duty to condemn this action.

The Islamic Republic of Iran's approach

In its foreign policy, the Islamic Republic of Iran has always emphasized the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of countries, respect for national sovereignty, and opposition to US unilateralism. In this context, from the perspective of international law, Iran considers this US action as an "aggression" and a clear violation of the UN Charter. Similar to Iran's positions regarding the US attack on Iraq (2003) or unilateral actions in Syria, this attack will also be seen as an example of Washington's disregard for international rules; Western analysts also say that from a political perspective, Iran has close relations with the Maduro government and sees Venezuela as one of its strategic allies in confronting US sanctions; therefore, Tehran will consider this attack not only a threat to Venezuela, but also part of the US policy of widespread pressure against the axis of resistance and independent countries.

From a diplomatic and media perspective, Iran is also expected to condemn this action in official statements and introduce it as a sign of "US imperialism and lawlessness." It will also likely emphasize the need to reform the Security Council structure and limit the veto power of the great powers; from the perspective of international law, the US attack on Venezuela lacks any legal justification and is considered an example of "aggression." From the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this action is a continuation of Washington's hegemonic policies, and Tehran will condemn it and stand by the Venezuelan government.