"United States and Israel believe that laws are for naive and losing nations"; a Japanese human rights expert in an interview with Pars Today

Parstoday-Saul Takahashi says the prohibition on the use of force is being systematically destroyed by Washington and Tel Aviv.

Saul Takahashi is a Japanese human rights lawyer, academic, and former Deputy Head of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Palestine. Known for his sharp criticism of Western double standards in international law, he has written extensively on war crimes, accountability, and the failures of global institutions in conflicts ranging from Iraq and Palestine to Iran. In this exclusive interview with Pars Today, Takahashi examines the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran since February 2026, arguing that they reflect not only military aggression but also the deeper collapse of the postwar international legal order and the erosion of the UN system itself.

Parstoday-To what extent does the scale and nature of joint U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran indicate a structural collapse of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter? Are we witnessing a permanent transition from the "prohibition of the use of force" to an era where "pre-emptive self-defense" is used as a blank check for state destabilization?

We are witnessing the dismantling of the international order as a whole, mainly by the US and Israel. Those countries want a return to the law of the jungle, where the strong can do what they wish and the weak can only suffer. A core part of this move to destroy the international system is the eradication of any constraints on the use of force; the US and Israel believe they are entitled to invade any country they wish, and commit any kind of international crime – including genocide – in the process. It is truly the time of monsters.

Parstoday- On March 4, 2026, the IRIS Dena, an Iranian vessel reported to be unarmed and returning from a diplomatic-training mission (Exercise MILAN), was sunk by U.S. forces. In your assessment, does the current naval blockade and the targeting of non-combatant vessels indicate a convergence of economic coercion and military force that existing maritime and international laws are failing to regulate?

Under international law, attacking a civilian ship is a war crime – that is very clear. The problem is that, under the current international system, there is no enforcement of the law. When militarily stronger states like the US and Israel prey on the weak, there are no real mechanisms to stop them – the UN Security Council is the only one, and that is obviously beholden to the Permanent Five Members.

Parstoday-Despite the extensive documentation of potential war crimes in this conflict, there is a visible absence of a unified international mechanism actively prosecuting these acts. What does the silence of the ICC and other bodies reveal about the enforcement capacity of international law when the accused are protected by Western political hegemony?

Once again, the double standards are staggering. Iran is actually not an ICC member state, but it can – and I believe should – lodge a declaration with the ICC saying it recognizes the Court’s jurisdiction since the beginning of the attacks. However, even supposing the ICC issues arrest warrants, there is, as we see,  no enforcement mechanism. The UN Security Council remains the sole body in the international system that can impose enforcement measures, but that body has absolutely no credibility: it failed to act in Gaza, and, in November 2025, it was even bullied into endorsing the Trump’s plan for colonization and exploitation of Gaza. With regard to the blatantly illegal war against Iran, the Security Council has only been blaming Iran for measures in the Hormuz Strait, and remains silent about American and Israeli aggression. There is no way the Security Council – or maybe even the UN itself – is sustainable with this level of hypocrisy.  

Parstoday-Beyond individual kinetic strikes, how should international law evaluate the cumulative damage to Iran’s civilian infrastructure, such as the power grid, water systems, and communications? Is the legal framework equipped to handle "reverberating effects"—where the long-term civilian death toll from infrastructure collapse outweighs the immediate casualties of the strikes?

The US and Israel are the aggressors, so they are very much responsible, and Iran is right to demand reparations. Once again, Gaza is a prime example of how the international community has been duped into the ‘humanitarian disaster’ logic, where well-meaning donors are expected to pay for reconstruction. Israel engages in wanton destruction, and it is somehow others that foot the bill? This is unacceptable, in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, or anywhere.

Parstoday-Medical neutrality is a non-negotiable principle of the Geneva Conventions. However, we have seen repeated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian hospitals during this conflict. Can these attacks ever be legally justified under the doctrine of "dual-use infrastructure," or is this a dangerous expansion of the concept intended to normalize the destruction of an adversary’s entire healthcare system?

There is no such thing as ‘dual use’ in international law. I believe it is very important not to fall into the trap of using this kind of bogus language: it is used by countries that want to do away with any legal constraints on the waging of war. Hospitals, bridges, electricity power plants, all that infrastructure is as a rule civilian, unless that object is making an effective contribution to the military effort, AND attacking it would not cause disproportionate harm to the civilian population. I am not aware of any evidence that the hospitals being attacked are being used for military purposes, so attacking them is, on the face of it, a war crime.

Parstoday-The strike on a school in Minab during school hours resulted in one of the highest civilian death tolls of the war, including a staggering number of children. Under IHL, how should an attack on an active educational facility be assessed? In an era of AI-driven "precision" weaponry, can "collateral damage" or "targeting error" still function as a valid legal defense for such mass casualties?

Attacking a school during school hours is a clear and obvious war crime – there is no evidence whatsoever the school was being used in any way by the military, and even the Americans haven’t tried to argue that was the case. More to the point though, the US and Israel are now intentionally disregarding the laws of war; their attitude is that they can do what they want, and rules are for suckers and losers. I don’t think the US believes it even has to bother justifying their actions.  

Parstoday-Drawing on your extensive analysis of Palestine and other global conflicts, do you see a legal continuity in how civilian harm is justified? Is there a documented pattern of how atrocities in Iraq and Gaza have paved the legal way for the normalization of civilian suffering in Iran today?

There is a clear continuity. More than any case, Gaza shows that the US and Israel have been advancing a ruthless, even sadistic model of war – one based on spectacular displays of gratuitous cruelty and destruction. Large scale massacres of civilians, genocide and ethnic cleansing, and starvation as a tool of war are not incidental to this strategy; they are the core methods. The US and Israel go out of their way to target homes, hospitals, religious and cultural facilities, schools and other vital infrastructure in an attempt at complete and total destruction.  International law, not to mention human morality, has no place in their approach.