'International law must be the framework for talks', Malaysian NGO
By: Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, MAPIM President
Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organizations (MAPIM) has emphasized that any diplomatic engagement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran must be grounded in international law adding that talks must not be dictated on Tehran when the American warships are amassed in the region.
Share It :
Malaysian Consultative Council of Islamic Organizations (MAPIM) states with urgency that any diplomatic engagement between the United States and Iran must be grounded in international law — not under the shadow of military coercion or strategic intimidation. Recent developments show that the United States has directed a large naval force — including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and multiple destroyers — toward the waters near Iran, signaling pressure on Tehran as a condition for talks.
At the same time Washington continues to impose broad economic sanctions on Iran and maintains longstanding punitive economic measures that have severely battered Iran’s economy since the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement.
1) Sanctions and Military Posture Have Been Central to US Policy on Iran
For decades the United States has employed sanctions as a primary tool to influence Iranian policy — from designating Iran a “state sponsor of terrorism” in 1984, to reimposing comprehensive sanctions after exiting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018.
These sanctions have restricted Iran’s economy, financial system, and oil exports, often without clear linkage to negotiated outcomes, creating structural pressure rather than incentives for diplomacy.
At the same time, the US military posture in the region — increasingly visible now — has grown under the rationale of deterrence but is interpreted by Tehran and many observers as strategic leverage ahead of negotiations.
2) Past US Military Actions Feed Distrust and Escalation Risk
History matters in diplomacy. The assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani in 2019 by US forces in Iraq was justified by Washington as pre-emptive, but it marked a deep rupture in trust and revealed a pattern of military action tied to political aims.
Likewise, partial US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — including air operations alongside Israeli forces — have been interpreted by Tehran and its regional partners as acts of war or preparation for deeper conflict.
These actions, framed as counter-terror or strategic defense, cannot be divorced from how they shape Iran’s perception of US intentions — and therefore how Iran approaches any diplomatic engagement.
3) Continued Sanctions and US Alignment with Israel’s War Aims Undercut Equitable Dialogue
The United States remains Israel’s closest strategic ally in the Middle East. In recent years, Washington has backed Israeli military operations and maintained broad political support even when those actions have escalated conflict or widened instability.
Maps of past exchanges and proxy engagements show that Iran and US allies have clashed repeatedly.
This linkage — US allegiance with Israeli war aims, sustained sanctions, and a build-up of warships toward Iran — reinforces the perception that diplomacy is being driven by power imbalances rather than mutual respect or legal norms.
4) International Law Must Be the Framework for Talks
MAPIM emphasises that true negotiation requires impartial frameworks, not postures of force.
Negotiations under international law respect state sovereignty, non-interference, and equal standing.
Sanctions — if used — should be linked to verifiable, law-based benchmarks, not sheer coercion.
Diplomatic venues must avoid the optics of military intimidation that distort the bargaining environment.
The deployment of warships and pressure tactics should not define the terms of dialogue. A peaceful, equitable process looks different: it relies on third-party mediation, legal frameworks like the UN Charter, and respect for Iranian sovereignty.
MAPIM believes peace and stability in West Asia — and indeed globally — will not be assured by coercion, sanctions, or force projection. Any talks involving Iran must be anchored in international law, diplomatic legitimacy, and equal respect for sovereign rights, not dictated by military presence or unilateral pressure.
