Iran has condemned recent U.S. air strikes on its territory as unlawful acts of aggression that violate international law.
The dispute highlights escalating tensions in the Persian Gulf, where competing narratives over military provocation threaten to destabilize regional security and disrupt critical maritime trade routes.
On May 24 [2], Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, rejected the justification for the military action. "The United States' strikes are an act of aggression and unlawful," Baghaei said.
The strikes occurred on May 7, 2026 [1], targeting an Iranian port on the Persian Gulf. U.S. military officials said the operation was a necessary response to protect American forces. A U.S. Central Command official said, "We are conducting these strikes in self‑defence" [1].
According to U.S. officials, the air strikes followed an unprovoked Iranian attack on U.S. Navy destroyers located in the Strait of Hormuz [1]. Washington maintains that the response was required to ensure the safety of its naval vessels.
Iran has disputed this sequence of events. The Foreign Ministry said that the U.S. campaign was not a response to any legitimate Iranian action, but rather an act of aggression [3].
Despite the military friction, some U.S. officials suggested that diplomatic channels remain open. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said, "Progress on the Iran conflict is encouraging" [2].
“"The United States' strikes are an act of aggression and unlawful."”
The conflicting accounts of who initiated the hostilities in the Strait of Hormuz reflect a volatile security environment. While the U.S. frames its actions as a proportional response to protect naval assets, Iran's characterization of the strikes as 'unlawful' suggests a refusal to acknowledge the initial provocation. The mention of 'encouraging' progress by U.S. legislators indicates a parallel effort to maintain a ceasefire or diplomatic dialogue even as kinetic engagements occur.
