Israel claimed that it had launched the war unilaterally and without coordination with others. U.S. officials—including the President, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the U.S. delegation to the United Nations—emphasized that Washington was neutral in the war and “had no role in Israel’s attacks against Iran.” They repeatedly stated that “America’s main priority was protecting its forces in the region.”

However, at the time, there was abundant evidence—both overt and covert—that the U.S. was a principal party in the conflict. The tweets, statements, and actions of the U.S. President were all issued from the position of a leader of a country engaged in war. All the equipment, logistics, and planning of the war belonged to the United States, and American forces were actively involved in intercepting Iranian projectiles against Israel, including drones and missiles. Finally, on June 22, 2025, the United States directly entered the war by deploying strategic aircraft to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. Despite this, the dominant narrative during and after the war was based on the declared neutrality of U.S. officials.

On November 6, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump made remarks in a press conference in the Oval Office that fundamentally altered this narrative. He declared: “Israel attacked first. That attack was very, very powerful. I was completely in charge of that.” Trump’s admission marked a serious change, redefining the U.S. role in the attack against Iran from neutrality to belligerence in the war. This admission directly contradicted months of statements by U.S. officials denying involvement and provided clear evidence of America’s participation in the aggressive war of June against Iran.

From the perspective of international law, Trump’s admission carries serious consequences. The responsibility of states in such circumstances is explicitly addressed in various international legal instruments. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states, and Article 51 permits it only in legitimate self-defense against armed attack. Similarly, the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (2001) state that acts carried out under the direction or control of a state are attributable to that state.

The International Court of Justice has reinforced this principle in its jurisprudence: in the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), it established the “effective control” standard for attributing responsibility, and in the Bosnian Genocide case (2007), it reaffirmed this criterion. Furthermore, Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions (1949) obliges states not only to respect humanitarian law themselves but also to ensure its implementation.

Taken together, these sources show that Trump’s admission of directing the attack places the United States squarely within the framework of international responsibility for unlawful acts.

Strategically, this admission also changed perceptions of the conflict. Trump’s words confirmed the U.S. role as a belligerent in the attack and its participation in an aggressive war. Notably, a wide range of principles of international law were violated during the war, each entailing international responsibility. Thus, the United States now bears a much heavier burden of responsibility. As a global power that seeks to portray itself as a stabilizer and peace-builder, being identified as a belligerent in aggression places its credibility at serious risk, and it cannot evade the consequences.

On November 7, 2025, Iran’s delegation to the United Nations sent an official letter to the Secretary-General as well as to the Security Council describing Trump’s remarks as “undeniable evidence” of U.S. responsibility. It emphasized that the attack constituted a grave violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and demanded accountability for the aggressors and compensation for the damages inflicted.

Iran’s decision to approach the Security Council was timely and necessary, though further actions remain possible. The U.S. President’s statements must be regarded as more than mere rhetoric; they are a clear admission of U.S. involvement and responsibility in the June 2025 attack against Iran, carrying direct implications for state responsibility. Iran can now use all available legal and international mechanisms to hold the U.S. accountable.

There may be doubts about the effectiveness of legal tools and international organizations, which are often subject to influence. Indeed, during this aggressive war, the Security Council even refrained from issuing a statement condemning the aggression and repeated violations of international law. The influence of major powers in these organizations is undeniable. But this is not the whole story. Iran should not let this diminish its motivation to continue legal and diplomatic efforts to hold the U.S. accountable. The pursuit of accountability and reparations will be difficult, time‑consuming, and challenging to achieve. Nevertheless, maintaining political and legal pressure on the perpetrators of this aggressive war and compelling them to accountability, acceptance of responsibility, and compensation for the damages and losses resulting from the blatant violation of international law in the aggression against Iran, is Iran’s right. Regardless of how easy or difficult this path may be, it is a necessary undertaking.

* Mohammad-Taghi Hosseini is a diplomat, researcher, and lecturer in international relations.