TEHRAN – "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." That is the warning U.S. police give criminal suspects when they are arrested. Its repetition in American movies and TV has made the notion — that your words can be used against you — familiar to most citizens. Yet some in the U.S. seem to believe words lose their bite when spoken by someone in the position of power.

There was a reason the U.S. administration insisted it had no part in the June 13 Israeli strikes on Iran. "Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement hours after the attacks happened. President Donald Trump, however, appeared more intent on boosting his ego than on weighing the consequences of his words when, in early November, he told a room of reporters at the White House that he was “very much in charge of” the Israeli assaults, saying it with a smug expression.

The remarks drew an almost instant reaction from Tehran. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said that “from the very beginning, it was clear that the United States was a full participant in Israel’s crime of aggression against the nation of Iran”.

The American?Israeli war against Iran ended on June 24 after 12 days of strikes. Nuclear, civilian and military infrastructure across Iranian territory were targeted, and more than 1,100 Iranians — including commanders, nuclear scientists and civilians — were killed. Analysts believe the U.S. and Israel stopped only after Iran’s missile strikes caused mass destruction in the occupied territories and hit a U.S. airbase in Qatar; otherwise, they say, the offensive would likely have continued until the government was toppled, internal chaos intensified and the country was plunged into prolonged political and security mayhem.

Just days after Baghaei’s post on X, Iran’s Ambassador to the UN urged the Security Council in a letter to act and hold the Americans responsible. This was followed by another letter delivered this Thursday to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, in which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the US-Israeli strikes, noting they were in contravention of international law.

“The strikes violated multiple international legal frameworks, including Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, IAEA resolutions, and UN Security Council Resolution 487 (1981),” Araghchi wrote. “Responsibility for these violations rests not only with the Zionist regime, but also with the U.S., which – in line with Trump’s admission – directed and controlled the Israeli aggression.”

Araghchi’s letter formally called on Washington to provide full reparation for the damages caused, including both material and moral compensation, as required under established international law.

According to Dr. Hesamuddin Boroumand, an international law expert and scholar, Iran has a clear right to seek compensation following the admission by the President of the United States, which constitutes an international acknowledgment.

“In this regard, Iran should utilize international legal mechanisms, such as filing a complaint with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Security Council. This process has already begun with Iran's permanent representative to the UN, and now the foreign minister,” he explained.

The expert added that Iran could also consider filing a complaint with the UN Human Rights Council, as during the 12-day aggression, numerous civilian facilities – including residential areas, media centers, prisons, and public buildings – were targeted, which clearly violates the Geneva Conventions. “Tragically, 1,100 of our fellow citizens lost their lives, which is a serious infringement on the 'right to life,' one of the most fundamental human rights. This situation creates international criminal responsibility for the commanders and officials involved in the U.S. actions,” Dr. Boroumand stated.

The most recent high-profile case in which an official’s own remarks were used against them in a court of law occurred last year, in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In a packed courtroom in The Hague, South Africa argued that statements by Israeli leaders and lawmakers conveyed an intent to commit genocide. The ICJ has not yet issued a final ruling, but the International Criminal Court (ICC) cited some of those remarks when issuing arrest warrants for two Israeli figures, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former War Minister Yoav Gallant.