Nournews: Continuing his arrogant excesses, the President of the United States once again, on Sunday evening, repeated and extended his previous deadline in threatening language and arrogantly warned Iran that if it does not reach an agreement and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, he would attack our country’s bridges and power plants, along with issuing further threats of severe consequences.

This is certainly not the first time that Trump has addressed Iran in such language. Moreover, each time he has made statements of this nature, he has immediately received a significant and painful response. His most recent threat also came shortly after he lost several of his aircraft inside Iranian territory and retreated after sustaining considerable losses.

However, beyond these developments, what is critically important is the fact that in order to carry out his inhumane threat against Iran’s bridge and power plant infrastructure, Trump would naturally have to utilize the airspace, facilities, geography, and possibly the logistical capacities of countries in the region.

Do the established rules and principles of international law contain provisions regarding the responsibility of intermediary states in such cases? This issue is extremely vital, as it may provide legal grounds and legitimacy for the targeted country (Iran) to respond not only against the aggressor state (the United States and Israel), but also against intermediary and facilitating states (including Europe and the countries of the southern Persian Gulf).

What emerges from the explicit provisions of international law and treaties is that such facilitating countries shall legally be regarded as accomplices and partners of the aggressor.