The extensive aerial operation and armed attack by Israel against Iran on the 23th khordad 1404 [corresponding to June 13,2025] may be characterized as a violation of the fundamental principle prohibiting the use of force, constituting an act and crime of aggression. Beyond other legal dimensions of the act of aggression, the purpose of this article is to examine the complex issue of the possible jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court(ICC) over the alleged committed crime, as well as the jurisdictional challenges facing this institution. While Iran's legal system lacks an appropriate normative and structural mechanism for applying complementarity jurisdiction concerning core international crimes, including the crime of aggression, the non-membership of both Iran and Israel in the ICC, the lack of willingness by Security Council(SC) to refer the situation to the ICC, and normative deficiencies regarding the acceptance of ad hoc declaration ( per article 12(3) of the Rome Statute) by Iran, render the ICC's exercise of jurisdiction difficult and even impossible. This article, after recounting the events, descriptively and analytically examines the possibility of the ICC exercising jurisdiction in light of trigger mechanism. Ultimately, it demonstrates that the ICC's jurisdiction faces specific challenges; an issue that both highlights the necessity of criminalizing core international crimes within domestic law of Iran, and indicates the fundamental reforms to the ICC's Statute, particularly concerning the role of the SC in activating the ICC's jurisdiction.

An armed attack against Iran by Israel, undoubtedly constitutes a violation of the fundamental principle prohibiting the use of force and is considered an act of aggression. This attack lacked the authorization of the Security Council and did not confirm to self-defense as stipulated in article 51 of the UN charter. The committed aggression fulfils both the material and mental elements of the crime of aggression as defined under article 8bis of the Rome Statute. Iran has so far shown no willingness to prosecute the committed crime before its domestic courts in light of the principle of complementarity. Moreover, existing legal framework has not adequately defined the elements of core international crimes, including the crime of aggression, and any broad interpretation thereof would not be acceptable in light of the fundamental principles of criminal law. In addition, it must be emphasized that no punishment have been prescribed with respect to these crimes. Therefore, in light of the principles of legality of crimes and punishments, Iraninan domestic courts lack the capacity to adjudicate the committed crime. The ICC also faces a number of jurisdictional challenges, as Iran and Israel have neither become parties to the ICC nor accepted the Kampala amendments. Furthermore, the security council lacks the ability to refer the situation to the ICC due to the veto power of the United States. Iran's ad hoc declaration is also ineffective with respect to the crime of aggression due to Israel's non membership. Unless the prosecutor of the ICC initiates investigation into other crimes committed. Since the activation of ICC's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, this crime has not yet been adjudicated before the ICC. The realization of such proceedings largely depends on a positive and proactive approach by the security council, which due to the prevailing political nature of the council, is difficult to attain.The linkage between the security council and the ICC, generally stems from the relationship between peace and justice, and more specifically, in relation to crime of aggression, derives from the security council's role under the UN charter in determining acts of aggression. An act of aggression constitutes a threat to peace as well as its violation. The main argument of Security Council involvement in the pre-conditions to the exercise of jurisdiction of the ICC over the crime of aggression stems from an interpretation of Article 39 of the UN Charter. Regarding a security council referral, both the temporal jurisdiction requirement and the activation of the ICC's jurisdiction must be satisfied; both conditions are met concerning Israel's act of aggression. Pursuant to article 15ter, the powers of the security council are extensive, meaning that consent of states in accepting this crime is not prerequisite for a security council referral. Under article 13(b), security council acts irrespective of states membership status. Consequently, the council's referral applies even to states party not ratified the Kampala amendments. It is evident that the security council's characterization of aggression is primarily political in nature and does not take into account legal effects and consequences. Accordingly, core international crimes that are of concern to the international community should not remain unpunished at the discretion of the permanent members of the security council who hold the veto power. The security council must either adhere to specific guiding principles when referring situation to the ICC, or, in the event of its inability to do so, the matter should be entrusted to the General Assembly or regional organizations. In this regard, an amendment to the Rome Statute is necessary.