Nournews: Recent remarks by Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and several U.S. military officials regarding Monday morning's attacks on Iran are not merely political statements or attempts to justify a military operation. They carry two important messages. On the one hand, following months of media censorship, these remarks amount to an explicit admission that American forces suffered casualties in the face of Iran's military capabilities. On the other hand, they inadvertently recognize the logic of "revenge," a rationale that, if accepted, also affirms Iran's right to seek justice for the blood of its own martyrs.

Defending the latest U.S. strikes, Trump claimed that the operation was carried out "in honor of two, or perhaps three, American patriots." Rubio and other U.S. officials likewise described the attacks on Iran as a response to the deaths of American service members. This argument, in addition to serving as an attempt to whitewash military aggression and justify the continuation of U.S. actions against Iran, constitutes an admission that challenges Washington's official narrative denying any casualties.

The Collapse of the Censorship Narrative and the Demonstration of Iran's Power

Throughout the war, the United States and its allies sought to conceal the scale of their own losses, as well as those of the Israeli regime, by restricting the flow of information. At the same time, much of the Western media focused exclusively on the damage inflicted on Iran, portraying Tehran as weak and incapable in an effort to suggest that Iran had no option but to retreat.

The recent admissions by U.S. officials have cast serious doubt on this narrative. Even if Trump's remarks represent only a small part of the reality of U.S. casualties, the very fact that such an admission has been made indicates that maintaining the censorship was no longer possible. Furthermore, reports published by American media indicate that before the attack that resulted in the deaths of two U.S. service members and the disappearance of another in Jordan, several other attacks had targeted American forces, wounding dozens of troops and damaging several helicopters, incidents that the Pentagon did not disclose publicly.

U.S. officials' acknowledgment that Iran has targeted ships instead of closing the Strait of Hormuz is itself evidence of Iran's continued deterrent capability and its ability to influence regional dynamics—a reality that is inconsistent with narratives portraying Iran as having been completely weakened.

Admissions with Legal and Political Consequences

At the outset, the United States sought to justify its acts of aggression by claiming that Iran's military capabilities had been destroyed. However, following Iran's retaliatory actions, Washington shifted its narrative and presented "revenge for the slain American troops" as the basis for its new attacks. This change in narrative, rather than conferring legitimacy, reflects an effort to reduce domestic pressure and justify the U.S. military's involvement in a war that has imposed heavy costs on Washington.

Within the same framework, Marco Rubio's remarks concerning Iran's internal developments, in addition to being interventionist, can also be seen as an attempt to normalize assassination and justify the continuation of unlawful actions against Iran, an issue that requires an appropriate legal and political response.

The publication by U.S. officials of images of American strikes on various parts of Iran also constitutes clear evidence of the United States' acceptance of responsibility for these actions and may be invoked within the framework of international law. At the same time, the question remains why those who claim to defend human rights and international law have remained silent in the face of such evidence and have failed to respond effectively.

The Right to Self-Defense and the Requirements for Any Ceasefire

The most significant conclusion that can be drawn from the recent statements of U.S. officials is their unintended acknowledgment of the principle of the "right to revenge." If Washington presents the deaths of its own forces as grounds for military action, the same logic affirms Iran's right to seek justice for the blood of its slain leader, the Minab schoolchildren, and the other martyrs of the Twelve-Day War and Ramadan.

Under the principles of international law, Iran considers itself entitled to the inherent right of self-defense and regards the pursuit of justice for the victims of aggression as an undeniable right. Therefore, any efforts by mediators such as Pakistan and Qatar to consolidate a ceasefire can only be effective if accompanied by concrete, verifiable, and binding guarantees of U.S. compliance.

It is not possible, on the one hand, to speak of a ceasefire while simultaneously continuing the deployment of U.S. military assets in the region, expanding arms sales, and justifying assassination, and, on the other hand, expect Iran to exercise restraint. Before taking any action, mediators must provide practical guarantees regarding U.S. commitment to its obligations and warn against the continued expansion of American military infrastructure in the region. Otherwise, any ceasefire agreement will not reduce tensions but will instead intensify the crisis and undermine the credibility of the mediators.