Strictly speaking, if the world were truly willing to uphold its own rules, what Israel has done would qualify it as a terrorist state in the full sense of the term.
Let us analyze this in accordance with international law.
Protection of the Media in Times of War: The Violated Legal Framework
Media outlets are protected by several international treaties that recognize their role as pillars of democracy, even in wartime. The United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and UN Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006) clearly prohibit deliberate attacks against journalists, media institutions, and information workers. Furthermore, Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions recognizes journalists as civilians and non-combatants.
In this context, the bombing carried out by Israel on June 16 against the headquarters of IRIB in Tehran—during a live broadcast—constitutes a direct violation of those fundamental principles. The assault occurred at 4:53 p.m. Israeli time (6:53 p.m. in Iran), interrupting the broadcast and causing chaos among journalists and technical staff. Although the signal was restored minutes later, the images of destruction and panic spread rapidly across the globe.
Journalist Sahar Emami, who was live on air at the moment of the strike, returned to camera minutes later from another studio and challenged the aggressor with a phrase that has generated broad debate: “You’re not hitting hard enough. Strike again.” According to Iranian media, despite the known risk, the news team chose to stay in place and keep reporting.
This type of attack leaves the public—and humanity at large—entirely unprotected. As journalist Julian Assange once warned: “If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.”
Immediate and Widespread Reactions
The attack triggered a wave of reactions in Iran and around the world. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei described it as “a crime that will be answered.” Military spokespersons declared that a “red line” had been crossed and invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter as the legal basis for possible retaliation.
Internationally, the United Nations, the International Commission of Jurists, and governments from Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Nigeria, and other Global South countries condemned the strike as a violation of Iran’s sovereignty and of international law.
The European Union, while refraining from direct condemnation, expressed “grave concern” and urged all parties to show “maximum restraint.” Press freedom organizations such as Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists labeled the act a “war crime,” as it targeted civilian and non-military media infrastructure.
Legal Consequences and Political Implications
From a legal standpoint, the bombing violates:
Article 2.4 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense with a verifiable imminent threat.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which defines the targeting of civilians as a war crime and the armed violation of another State’s sovereignty as a crime of aggression.
The Geneva Conventions and International Human Rights Law, which protect the practice of journalism even in armed conflicts.
Legal experts and international observers agree that Israel has now established a clear pattern constituting not only international criminal liability but also a form of state terrorism, by deliberately targeting civilians and journalists for political purposes. The tacit or explicit support from the United States to such operations strengthens the accusation of complicity in crimes that must be judged by international tribunals.
Peace Proposal: A Real Turning Point
In the wake of this latest episode, more and more diplomatic, legal, and civic actors recognize that the only viable way forward begins with acknowledging that the current model has failed. As a first step toward lasting peace, the following actions are urgently needed:
Publicly acknowledge that these acts constitute clear violations of international law.
Halt all forms of preemptive aggression against civilian targets.
Reopen multilateral diplomatic channels under impartial mediation.
Establish protected zones around media outlets, hospitals, and schools, with international presence.
Create an independent commission to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
Draft a binding treaty banning preemptive wars, explicitly prohibiting the use of strategic arguments such as the alleged “nuclear threat” to justify bombing campaigns.
Invest in cultural and educational diplomacy as a long-term tool for conflict prevention.
Peace cannot be a theatrical backdrop. If the world is not ready to recognize facts and call things by their name, it will continue perpetuating a system of impunity. And as history teaches us, all impunity—sooner or later—becomes a boomerang.
