The Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations has formally petitioned the UN Security Council, alleging that the United States has issued “persistent and explicit threats” of military force against Tehran in violation of international law.
In a letter dated February 19, 2026, Iran’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, addressed the complaint to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and the President of the Security Council, James Kariuki. The communication accuses Washington of contravening the Charter of the United Nations, specifically Article 2(4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Alleged Social Media Threat
At the centre of the dispute is a February 18 social media post attributed to the President of the United States. According to the Iranian letter, the post suggested that if Iran failed to “make a deal,” Washington might consider using the Diego Garcia military base and an airfield in RAF Fairford in connection with a potential strike.
Tehran characterized the remarks as a “flagrant violation” of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The provision is a foundational principle of the post-World War II international legal order, aimed at preventing unilateral military action and safeguarding state sovereignty.
Iran argued that the statement should not be dismissed as rhetorical hyperbole, particularly given what it described as a sustained build-up and repositioning of U.S. military assets in the region. The combination of public threats and military movements, Tehran contended, creates a heightened risk of escalation.
Concerns Over Regional Stability
In its submission, Iran warned that the current trajectory poses a serious threat to regional and international peace. The Middle East remains a theatre of multiple overlapping conflicts and geopolitical rivalries, and Iranian officials cautioned that any direct confrontation between Tehran and Washington could trigger consequences extending far beyond bilateral tensions.
“The situation signals a real risk of military aggression,” the letter stated, adding that such action would have catastrophic implications for regional stability. Tehran framed the issue not merely as a bilateral dispute but as a matter squarely within the Security Council’s mandate to maintain international peace and security.
The Iranian envoy emphasized that public pronouncements referencing specific military installations amplify the credibility of potential action. By naming Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, the alleged statement was portrayed as operationally suggestive rather than abstract.
Reference to International Law
Iran’s letter repeatedly invoked the UN Charter as the governing legal framework. Article 2(4) prohibits both the use and the threat of force, a dual formulation that international legal scholars interpret as encompassing not only actual military action but also coercive rhetoric intended to intimidate another state.
Tehran argued that threats of force undermine the collective security architecture established in 1945. The Iranian mission urged the Security Council to act promptly to prevent what it described as the normalization of military threats as instruments of foreign policy.
The letter also referenced Article 51 of the UN Charter, which affirms the inherent right of states to self-defence if an armed attack occurs. While reiterating that Iran does not seek conflict and will not initiate hostilities, the communication warned that any military aggression would prompt a “decisive and proportionate” defensive response.
“In such circumstances,” the letter stated, “all bases, facilities, and assets of the hostile force in the region would constitute legitimate targets” under the framework of self-defence. The Iranian mission further asserted that the United States would bear full responsibility for any resulting escalation.
Context of Nuclear Negotiations
The diplomatic confrontation unfolds against the backdrop of ongoing nuclear negotiations between Tehran and Washington. Iran’s letter emphasized that it remains committed to diplomatic engagement and to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
According to Iravani, Tehran has participated in negotiations “constructively, with seriousness and in good faith,” seeking the full and verifiable lifting of what it termed “unlawful and inhumane unilateral coercive measures.” The phrase refers to economic sanctions imposed by the United States.
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is peaceful and conducted within the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). As a State Party to the treaty, Tehran asserts what it describes as its inalienable right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, subject to international safeguards.
The letter contends that a balanced and durable agreement remains achievable, provided that the United States approaches negotiations with what Tehran described as genuine respect for international law and peremptory norms.
Appeal to the Security Council
Tehran’s petition calls on the Security Council to exercise its primary responsibility under the UN Charter by ensuring that member states comply with their legal obligations. Specifically, Iran urged the Council to require the United States to cease what it characterizes as unlawful threats of force.
“The Security Council and the Secretary-General must act without delay, before it is too late,” the letter stated. The Iranian mission argued that failure to address such threats could erode the authority of the Charter and weaken the credibility of the multilateral system.
Diplomatic observers note that Security Council dynamics may complicate the matter. As a permanent member of the Council, the United States holds veto power, limiting the likelihood of binding resolutions against it. Nonetheless, formal correspondence of this nature ensures that the issue is entered into the Council’s official records and may prompt discussions behind closed doors.
Broader Geopolitical Implications
The exchange underscores persistent volatility in U.S.–Iran relations, which have oscillated between negotiation and confrontation over the past decade. Military deployments, sanctions regimes, and periodic escalations have contributed to an environment of strategic mistrust.
By elevating the matter to the Security Council, Iran is signalling its intention to frame the dispute within the architecture of international law rather than solely through bilateral channels. At the same time, its warning regarding potential retaliation underscores the seriousness with which Tehran views the alleged threats.
The Iranian mission formally requested that its letter be circulated as an official document of the Security Council, thereby ensuring transparency and institutional acknowledgment.
As diplomatic channels remain active, the international community will be closely monitoring whether rhetoric translates into policy shifts or whether renewed negotiations can defuse tensions. For now, Iran’s petition places the issue squarely before the United Nations, highlighting the enduring fragility of security dynamics in the Middle East and the broader implications for global stability.
