Iran is treating the killing of Suleimani as a "terrorist attack," an "assassination," and "a criminal act."
There are gestures to the threat and use of force, and Iran's right of self-defense, but the letter doesn't characterize the killing as an armed attack by the U.S. 1/
There are gestures to the threat and use of force, and Iran's right of self-defense, but the letter doesn't characterize the killing as an armed attack by the U.S. 1/
Notably, the letter underscores that the IRGC is "an official branch of [Iran's] armed forces," which would establish a use of force by the U.S. against Iran. But that's left to implication. 2/
The letter also does not say, or suggest, that Iran and the U.S. are in an armed conflict, or that Iran considers further U.S. strikes imminent. It calls for the Security Council to maintain international peace and security. 3/
The letter is deliberately ambiguous at many points (e.g., what does "in this regard" mean?). But, overall, this is a fairly restrained response worth close study. 4/4
On the other hand . . . Ravanchi *the same day* called the strike "an act of aggression" against Iran (2:40) that called for retaliation (aka reprisal, which is illegal). 5/
nbcnews.com/news/world/ira…
nbcnews.com/news/world/ira…
Side note: earlier in the interview, Ravanchi says the strike was an act of aggression against *Iraq* and a violation of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity (1:35). 6/
