Amedeo Avondet is the founder of Italia Unita, a political organization launched on May 13, 2022, which seeks to restore Italian national sovereignty through withdrawal from the European Union and NATO. He has served as a parliamentary assistant at the European Parliament, managed communications for a regional councilor, collaborated with various news outlets, and currently works as a correspondent for the RRN news agency.
In this interview with the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV), Avondet offers an uncompromising analysis of Israel’s June 2025 attacks on Iran, the legal and political dynamics behind them, and the structural obstacles to accountability within the international system. He addresses the entrenched Western alignment with Israel, the erosion of the United Nations’ authority, and the need for alternative alliances to counter Euro-Atlantic hegemony.
The views expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the positions of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence (ODVV)
1- In light of Israel’s attacks on Iran starting 13 June 2025, which have resulted in the deaths of 1,100 people—including 126 women and 41 children—and more than 5,700 injuries, how would you evaluate these actions under international law, especially in relation to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which prohibits the use of force against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of another state? Israel and the United States have invoked a controversial interpretation of Article 51 on self-defense to justify their actions. What is your assessment of this justification?
- As I have reiterated on multiple occasions during televised interviews in my capacity as a legal expert, the Charter of the United Nations and international law do not permit, nor do they justify, any form of preemptive attack against sovereign states recognized by the international community. There exists no geopolitical, legal, or military rationale that could legitimize Israel’s conduct in the current context. The root of the so-called Twelve-Day War lies solely in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire to preserve his emergency powers. One must not overlook the significant internal difficulties the Israeli Prime Minister is facing, stemming from his personal legal troubles within Israel itself. Netanyahu is currently on trial for corruption, fraud, and breach of trust in three distinct legal cases—known respectively as Case 1000, Case 2000, and Case 4000. Naturally, the presumption of innocence applies until a final ruling is issued, but it is equally evident that the current emergency government in Israel is sustained more by the systematic creation of external enemies than by any genuine internal consensus. This is a historical pattern frequently observed in political and military affairs, and to which Israel is by no means an exception. The recent attacks on Syria are but a further demonstration of this dynamic.
2- Israel has deliberately targeted critical civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, water facilities, and the Kimidarou pharmaceutical factory in Tehran. It has also issued vague evacuation warnings for a city of over 10 million residents, causing widespread panic and displacement. What strategic or political objectives do you believe Israel was pursuing with these actions?
- The acts committed by Israel are, without any shadow of doubt, egregious war crimes that merit the severest moral and political condemnation. Regrettably, from a strictly legal and pragmatic standpoint, if a State has not ratified relevant conventions or treaties, there are virtually no effective instruments of enforcement or intervention available to the international community. The only exception would lie with the United Nations Security Council, where, due to the United States’ veto power, the situation will remain frozen in a state of impunity. Israel will therefore remain completely unpunished and free to act—at least in this world. God, however, sees everything and takes note. That, I believe, is the only certainty one can affirm.
3- The killing of 13 Iranian civilian nuclear scientists and their families, alongside paramedics and Red Crescent medical staff, has been described by several observers as both extrajudicial execution and a grave breach of international humanitarian law. In your view, what role can the International Criminal Court or other legal mechanisms play in addressing such violations, and what are the realistic pathways to ensure accountability?
While I unequivocally condemn the targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, along with the deliberate attacks on medical and humanitarian personnel affiliated with the Red Crescent, I do not believe the International Criminal Court (ICC) can play any substantive role in holding Israel accountable for its violations of the law of armed conflict or international humanitarian law. Legally speaking, Israel cannot be deemed in violation of treaties to which it has never consented. The State of Israel has never ratified the Rome Statute, which means that the ICC lacks any jurisdiction over Israeli political or military decision-making. Any attempt to assert such jurisdiction would constitute a breach of Israeli sovereignty and would set an extremely dangerous precedent.
At the same time, if we shift from a legal to a geopolitical and military lens, it must once again be acknowledged that realpolitik has always operated on the principle of “diplomacy through force”— a principle as brutal as it is historically ubiquitous. Consider, for instance, the famous Melian Dialogue in Book V of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, or, more recently, the characteristically arrogant foreign policy practiced by Anglo-Saxon powers over the last two centuries.
Judges will not save Palestinians, Iranians, or Arabs. Only reciprocal force, applied with strategic intelligence and determination, can forestall long-term Israeli strategic dominance. Any project not grounded in the hard foundations of blood and strength risks becoming nothing more than an idle intellectual affectation, destined to crumble upon first contact with a ruthless and unforgiving reality.
4- Given the consistent support of Western governments for Israel, despite decades of documented human rights violations and UN condemnations, what explains this persistent political alignment? In your view, what are the structural or ideological factors that sustain this Western consensus in favor of Israel, even in the face of atrocities?
- There are three principal reasons for the persistent alignment of Western governments with Israel. First, Europe continues to grapple with a deep-seated historical guilt vis-à-vis the Jewish people. Centuries of ghettoization, pogroms, and systemic violence culminating in the Holocaust have left European governments morally exposed to instrumental accusations of antisemitism, whether from Zionist organizations or from the Israeli government itself.
Second, Jewish communities wield considerable economic influence in most Western countries and beyond. In the United States, for example, one in three millionaires is of Jewish origin or faith. Third, the Israeli intelligence services, pro-Israel networks, and Zionist-aligned institutions have demonstrated exceptional capacity in establishing political and economic lobbying mechanisms capable of directly or indirectly influencing many political decision-makers. The case of AIPAC in the United States stands as a paradigmatic example. Moreover, the psychological and informational warfare waged systematically through compromised or manipulated media has proven highly effective in rationalizing the irrational and justifying the unjustifiable.
5- How do you assess the response or lack thereof by the UN Security Council in this context? To what extent does its inaction impact the legitimacy of the international legal order and the UN’s credibility as a guardian of international peace and security?
- The UN Security Council’s veto system renders any collective international response effectively impossible. In an increasingly multipolar world marked by escalating tensions between rival blocs, the United Nations’ mandate is being steadily eroded, reducing its function to a largely ceremonial role. In the years to come, only one rule will prevail: the rule of the strong—both economically and, above all, militarily.
6- Israel has repeatedly violated international law in Gaza, Lebanon, and now Iran. What legal, diplomatic, or even grassroots mechanisms do you believe can effectively promote accountability and prevent impunity?
- The states targeted by Israel should urgently strengthen their bilateral and multilateral agreements, particularly in defense and economic cooperation. Emulating a NATO-style framework would mark a strategic and operational turning point. A mutual defense clause, joint training operations, systems integration, collaborative development of advanced military technologies, and the resulting reductions in research and production costs would considerably enhance the strategic posture of all states resisting Euro-Atlantic hegemony. In this regard, the existing partnerships between Russia and several other nations have already yielded mutually beneficial outcomes, unequivocally demonstrating the necessity of pursuing this path.
7- As someone deeply familiar with Italian political dynamics, how have major political parties and the current Italian government responded to this conflict? Do you observe any shift in public or parliamentary discourse in Italy regarding Israel’s actions, particularly in the aftermath of the attacks on Iran?
- In no way whatsoever. Since 1943, Italy has effectively been a country of limited sovereignty. The presence of U.S. military bases and significant NATO personnel on Italian territory prevents any genuine shift in national policy. Although numerous public demonstrations have taken place, the will of the Italian people is irrelevant when set against the dictates of Washington. The only real prospect for change would be the unification of these protest movements into a single political force committed to restoring national independence and sovereignty.
8- In your view, what viable legal or institutional mechanisms currently exist within the UN system—such as the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly, or regional human rights courts—to ensure accountability for sustained and systematic violations of international law, such as Israel’s recent attacks on Iran? What reforms would be necessary to make these mechanisms more effective?
- Unless and until an international police force, operating under a UN mandate and with jurisdiction over all member states, is established—a proposal that remains entirely utopian— there will be no means of prosecuting heads of state or officials responsible for war crimes, unless the governing regime in question suffers a complete military, political, and economic collapse. The Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis in 1945–46 remain the most emblematic precedent.
9- Considering the coordinated nature of the military strikes by Israel and the United States against Iranian nuclear sites, is there a credible basis in international law for initiating proceedings against the U.S. for complicity in unlawful uses of force? How could jurisdictional or admissibility challenges be addressed at forums like the International Court of Justice or other tribunals?
- There exists no realistic possibility of prosecuting the United States—or its political and military officials—unless it were to undergo a catastrophic collapse on multiple fronts. Any judge or official, whether from the United Nations or another international legal institution, who attempts to bring legal proceedings against the United States would immediately be sanctioned—or eliminated. The United States is a nuclear, military, and economic superpower. It does not recognize the Rome Statute and therefore assigns no authority to the International Criminal Court within its domestic legal framework. Even in the unlikely event of a conviction by the ICC, such a decision would have absolutely no practical consequences for U.S. authorities. The Court simply has no jurisdiction over states that do not recognize its authority.
10- Given the recent nomination of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize despite his outspoken support for Israeli policies, including during episodes of mass civilian targeting in Gaza and now Iran, what does this reveal about the politicization of peace narratives? In your view, how can international norms be protected against such contradictions?
- Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize after launching far more military interventions than Donald Trump. One need only recall the intervention in Libya, which remains a catastrophe for both the Libyan people and the Italian population, the latter still suffering from intense migratory pressure as a direct consequence of reckless U.S. policies enacted under administrations preceding Trump. The most viable course of action would be to completely abandon Western-controlled institutions and establish alternative ones in concert with friendly nations or aligned blocs. The creation of a “BRICS Peace Prize,” for example, could offer a compelling and credible counterweight.
11- Israeli officials have publicly expressed pride in targeting Palestinian civilians —even those queuing for humanitarian aid in Gaza —suggesting a deliberate strategy of collective punishment. How does such rhetoric function ideologically to normalize war crimes, and what legal classification do these acts fall under in the framework of international criminal law?
- These are, unequivocally, war crimes and must be prosecuted by every available means. However, as previously stated, from a strictly legal standpoint, no realistic means currently exist to impose judicial punishment. Consequently, extrajudicial executions may become the only possible form of retaliation—though this brings with it the risk that justice devolves into vengeance. In the end, only God can judge whether descending to the level of the perpetrators represents the highest form of justice, or whether extending mercy to demonic and malevolent souls is the path to be followed. I leave that decision to readers, in accordance with their individual faiths.
