Nournews: The U.S. attack on a wedding ceremony in the port of Kuhestak, Sirik, is not merely another bloody incident in Washington’s wartime record. It is another chapter in a reality that, for years, has remained obscured behind the language of human rights and U.S. claims of accountability. As international criticism mounts, reports indicate that U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has launched an “internal review” into the attack, while the U.S. vice president has also spoken of an investigation. But the fundamental question remains: Can an institution accused of committing a crime also serve as the authority responsible for judging that crime?
From Minab to Sirik: Investigations That Fade Into Oblivion
Washington seeks to project an image of responsibility and respect for human rights by announcing internal investigations. Yet the experience of recent decades suggests that such investigations have often served not to uncover the truth, but to buy time, manage public opinion, and prevent the establishment of independent fact-finding mechanisms.
The attack on a school in Minab is one example. Media reports and assessments by human rights organizations raised questions about U.S. responsibility. Yet months later, no clear outcome from the purported investigation has been made public. Now, the same pattern appears to be unfolding in the case of the Sirik wedding attack: first the alleged crime occurs, then the accused assumes the roles of investigator, prosecutor and judge, and ultimately the case is buried in silence and forgotten.
When a Fact-Finding Committee Becomes a Shield for the Crime
The issue is not limited to Iran. From Afghanistan and Iraq to Vietnam and other theaters of war, numerous cases involving attacks on civilians, wedding ceremonies and public gatherings, as well as the use of unconventional weapons, have been recorded in the U.S. military record. Yet many of these cases have either stalled within domestic mechanisms or been closed without those responsible—whether perpetrators or decision-makers—being punished.
A clear example of this approach is the downing of an Iranian passenger aircraft by the USS Vincennes. Not only was the ship’s commander not punished, but he was also awarded a medal. This reality raises a broader question: When the accused is also the judge, can an “internal investigation” be anything more than a mechanism for exoneration?
A similar dynamic can be seen in the case of Israel and alleged crimes in Gaza, where the creation of internal investigative mechanisms has repeatedly taken the place of genuine accountability. The result is an erosion of the very concept of justice and the transformation of fact-finding into a tool for managing the narrative surrounding alleged crimes.
The Erosion of International Institutions and the Global Justice Gap
The crisis is not confined to the battlefield; a significant part of it is unfolding in the realm of international law. The United States, particularly during the Trump administration, has moved toward reinforcing unilateralism through measures including sanctions against officials of the International Criminal Court, withdrawal from or weakening of multilateral institutions, and pressure on international mechanisms.
Sanctions and economic blockades are also part of this broader framework. Their consequences directly affect the lives of millions of people. U.N. experts have repeatedly highlighted the humanitarian consequences of unilateral sanctions and stressed the need to uphold human rights and establish accountability for those responsible for such measures.
Under these circumstances, the international community faces a historic responsibility: to restore independent international institutions, support impartial fact-finding mechanisms, and prevent political and military power from placing itself above the law.
BRICS: From Economic Cooperation to a New Architecture of Global Justice
Against this backdrop, the meeting of the chief justices of BRICS member states in India could represent more than routine legal consultations. It could provide a platform for developing a new approach to international justice. If the emerging global order is to move away from unilateralism, that transformation must extend into the fields of law and justice as well.
Establishing independent fact-finding mechanisms, strengthening judicial cooperation among BRICS members, and exploring avenues for prosecuting war crimes could be important steps in this direction—particularly in cases involving officials whose decisions have endangered the security of nations and the lives of civilians.
Iran, with its experience in handling cases involving terrorism and organized crimes, could also make some of its judicial capacities available to the group.
To break the cycle of impunity and alleged crimes, the world needs independent justice above all else—a system in which power cannot serve as a shield for those responsible, and no government can evade accountability simply by establishing an internal court or investigative mechanism.
At this juncture, BRICS could evolve from an economic and political cooperation framework into one of the pillars of the emerging global legal order—an order in which truth is not sacrificed to power and justice is not held hostage to politics.
NOURNEWS