Spokesperson of the Iranian Foreign Ministry Esmaeil Baghaei made a public statement, calling on the international community to take decisive actions against what he termed as barbaric lawlessness by the Israeli military in Gaza. By characterizing the activities as genocidal, the comments of Baghaei provided some urgency to decades-old Iranian denunciations of Israel activities and joined Tehran with the international demands of responsibility.
This assertion is an extension of months of heightened violence in Gaza where more than 66,000 Palestinians have been allegedly killed since October 2023. In accordance with the UN statistics, about 83 percent of such deaths are civilian. Civil infrastructure such as hospitals, schools and water systems have been targeted several times leading to what humanitarian specialists refer to as a breakdown of civilian life.
The presentation of the conflict as genocide, as developed by Iran, appeals to the commitments under the international law and reflects the growing legal criticism by the UN officials and the human rights associations. The rhetoric of Tehran plays both the legal and strategic roles of placing its own state as a protector of Palestinian rights in the changing geopolitical landscape of 2025, with direct confrontation of the Western-aligned discourse that minimizes or has legalized the extent of the carnage.
The International Legal Framework And Obstacles To Prosecuting Genocide
According to the UN Genocide Convention of 1948, genocide is acts of genocide that are perpetrated with the intent of exterminating (wholly or partially) a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. According to the law, one must prove the actus reus (committing criminal acts like killings or causing grave harm) and the mens rea (intent to destroy a group). This intent, especially in the clouds of war, is one of the most challenging matters of prosecuting international crimes.
Preliminary investigations by the International Criminal Court (ICC) into the circumstances in Gaza started in 2021 and became intense by the end of 2024. Senior Israeli officials were put on arrest warrants on the basis of plausible evidence of systematic attacks on civilian populations. Nevertheless, it is not strictly implemented. Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and it has not recognized the ICC jurisdiction nor has it agreed to cooperate.
The process of evidence depends on a set of satellite images, eyewitnesses, and independent field research. According to the legal experts, this could be challenging despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence because it could take years to prove the genocidal intent at the level of leadership, which met with a lot of opposition.
Political Constraints And Diplomatic Blockades
The enforceability of international criminal law is largely affected by geopolitics. Those nations that have veto authority in the UN Security Council are capable of obstructing referrals or weakening a resolution towards a particular conflict. With regards to Gaza, attempts to set up independent UN-based investigations have been continuously blocked, especially by proponents of Israel.
The statement of Iran 2025 is a strong condemnation of these diplomatic shields, claiming that it fosters a culture of selective justice. The same is echoed by human rights activists who observe that the politicization of accountability mechanisms undermines trust in multilateral institutions. Their demand of the independent and neutral justice systems that cannot be politicized has gained more momentum amidst impunity.
Regional And Global Responses To Iran’s Justice Appeal
The attractiveness of Tehran has echoed across states and actors of the Global South whose understanding of the Gaza conflict is riddled with issues of colonialism, power imbalances, and unmet international pledges to human rights. Similar pleas have been enhanced by countries such as South Africa, Malaysia and Algeria in the UN general assembly which is demanding immediate action and more strict control over the transfer of arms to Israel.
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) also boosted its actions to organize legal and humanitarian responses. In early 2025, the OIC held a special session requesting the member states to refer to the ICC and to impose diplomatic sanctions on Israel until the international investigations are over.
Divergence From Western Narratives And Justifications
The Western governments are still justifying the right of Israel to defend itself under the aspect of the asymmetry of the war and human shields used by the militant groups. They deny the title of genocide portraying it as politically motivated and wrong in the law. This defense has been especially visible in arguments in the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, in which the language of resolutions has been hotly contested.
This division strengthens the existing disjunctures in the international forums and hinders the process of reaching a consensus as well as restricting the extent to which a collective action can be taken. Consequently, the global reaction is still divided, and parallel accounts of regional diplomatic stances and hindering legal clarity are formed.
The Role Of Civil Society And International Monitoring Mechanisms
They still remain important in order to report the violations in Gaza, with non-governmental organizations like Amnesty International, Medecins Sans Frontieres and Human Rights Watch. Their presence on the land combined with satellite forensics and witness accounts is a direct contribution towards the constitution of legal cases to be prosecuted.
A coalition of civil society organizations provided the ICC with a detailed report on the patterns of destruction and displacement in 2025. A UN fact finding mission initially released preliminary results of the investigation referring to the report, which talks of deliberate targeting of vital civilian infrastructure in amounts unable to correspond to an appropriate military response.
Such independent evaluation does not only seal the gaps in evidence but also gives moral and diplomatic weight to states who would argue accountability.
Mobilization And Public Pressure
Mobilization of the public in Europe, Latin America and Asia has created impetus to justice demands. The humanitarian cost of the conflict has become publicized by giant protests in Berlin, Cape Town, and Jakarta during the early years of 2025 and accused the state of complicity in the conflict by supplying arms or diplomatic protection.
Although it is difficult to directly relate protests to the judicial mechanisms, they contribute to the creation of the political environment under which the decisions are made. Even temporary bans of arms sales by certain European nations have already been brought about by the pressure of civil society, which means that the policy change can be achieved by the civil society even in the case of the most deeply-rooted geopolitical interests.
Legal, Moral, And Strategic Implications Moving Forward
The issue of accountability in Gaza goes beyond the legal classification to include a bigger issue of the believability of the international justice system. The action requested by Iran is not simply a condemnation but an extension of a challenge to a perceived world order that is seen to be unequal in its application of law standards.
To the international institutions, the test of credibility is whether the institutions are willing and can perpetrate justice despite the political identity of the perpetrators. The resulting exemption of certain actors to face the accountability mechanisms because of the diplomatic authority or the lack of membership in the institutions of law establishes some hierarchy that obstructs the work of deterring and depriving victims of redress.
Iran’s own human rights record, often criticized by the same institutions it now appeals to, adds a layer of complexity. Critics argue that Tehran’s position may be politically expedient. However, this does not negate the core legal questions it raises. The focus on messenger identity must not obscure the content and urgency of the message: international law must apply universally, or risk irrelevance.
As Gaza’s humanitarian crisis deepens and legal proceedings inch forward, the international community faces a pivotal decision. Will it continue to tolerate selective enforcement, or take steps toward a more balanced and principled framework of justice? The months ahead may reveal whether institutions built in the wake of past atrocities are still equipped to confront the moral and legal challenges of the present.