Africa-Press – Kenya. The Embassy of Iran in Kenya has responded to remarks by Kenya’s Principal Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Korir Sing’oei, concerning escalating tensions in the Gulf region.
In a statement dated April 7, 2026, Iran justifies Military Strikes as Lawful Self-Defense Amid Gulf Tensions, accusing the U.S. and Israel.
“Your Excellency, allow us to comment on this post in which we are of the view that it has missed a few important chapters of international law,” the statement read.
On April 1, PS Korir acknowledged having a call with Abdulla Balalaa, the Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs for Energy and Sustainability of the United Arab Emirates and attributed the attacks to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
In the response, Iran highlighted five issues concerning the ongoing conflicts.
Iran’s Legal and Strategic Response to Kenya
In a subsequent response, Tehran expressed strong disagreement with the framing of the conflict in Sing’oei’s post and contended that important legal aspects of international law had been overlooked.
The Embassy attributed aggression in the region to actions by the United States and what it described as the “Israeli regime”, stating that the states used regional territories to launch operations against Iran, a claim referenced under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (Definition of Aggression) regarding the use of a state’s territory to carry out aggression against a third state.
The Iranian statement also invoked Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
According to the Embassy, actions by the U.S. and Israel constituting such force were the root cause of the ongoing crisis.
Tehran further defended its military operations as a lawful exercise of the inherent right to self-defense, claiming that Iranian strikes were directed only at military installations and conducted in accordance with the principles of proportionality, necessity, and discrimination under international law.
“Our response has been strictly in exercise of our inherent right to self‐defense, consistent with international law and the principles of proportionality, necessity, and discrimination,” read part of the statement.
Strait of Hormuz and Maritime Security
The Embassy argued that before recent hostilities, the strait was open to all nations, and that any current disruptions to Persian Gulf maritime traffic were a direct consequence of what Iran described as foreign aggression.
It stated that, as a coastal state, Iran had implemented necessary restrictions to ensure safe passage and that vessels of non-belligerent countries could exercise innocent passage in coordination with Iranian authorities.
“Before the U.S.‐Israeli regime military aggression against Iran’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, the Strait of Hormuz was open to all countries. Any current disruption to Persian Gulf security or maritime traffic is a direct consequence of that aggression, and full responsibility lies with the aggressors. As the coastal state, Iran has introduced necessary restrictions to ensure safe passage. Vessels belonging to non‐belligerent countries may conduct innocent passage in coordination with Iran,” added Iran
