Iran Condemns Rubio's Threat to Dismantle ICC Over Tribunal Jurisdiction

The public exchange between Tehran and Washington's top diplomat signals deepening friction over whether the International Criminal Court can exercise authority over US allies, a question that has...

Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei formally denounced US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's stated intention to dismantle the International Criminal Court "brick by brick" if Washington's allies do not restrain the tribunal's activities, according to Press TV, which reported Baghaei's statement on October 10, 2026.

Baghaei characterized Rubio's comments as a dangerous assault on the post-World War II international legal order. His remarks did not specify which ICC proceedings or warrants prompted the US threat, and the full text of Rubio's original statement was not independently reproduced in the source material available at the time of publication.

The ICC was established by the Rome Statute, which entered into force in 2002. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and has never ratified it, meaning American citizens are generally not subject to ICC jurisdiction except under narrow circumstances involving crimes committed on the territory of member states.

The court is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, and currently has 124 member states. Countries that have not ratified the Rome Statute, including the United States, Russia, China, and Israel, have at various points disputed the court's authority to investigate or issue warrants related to their nationals or allies.

US hostility toward the ICC is not new. The American Servicemembers' Protection Act, signed into law in 2002 under President George W. Bush, authorized the president to use military force to free any US citizen detained by the court and prohibited US military aid to most ICC member states unless they agreed not to hand Americans over to the tribunal. That law was popularly called the "Hague Invasion Act" by critics at the time.

The Obama administration moved toward greater cooperation with the ICC without seeking Senate ratification of the Rome Statute. The Trump administration's first term, from 2017 to 2021, reversed that posture, with then-National Security Advisor John Bolton announcing in 2018 that the United States would take active measures against the court if it pursued Americans or US allies. The State Department at that time revoked the visa of the ICC's chief prosecutor.

The Biden administration adopted a more cooperative stance, lifting sanctions the first Trump administration had placed on ICC officials. The current posture under Secretary Rubio represents a return to the adversarial approach, though the specific trigger for Rubio's "brick by brick" formulation had not been detailed in sources available as of October 10, 2026. Publication of any accompanying State Department statement or official notice would clarify the scope and legal mechanism of any intended US action.

Iran's decision to respond publicly is notable given that Tehran itself has a fraught relationship with international legal institutions and is not an ICC member state. Baghaei's framing of the issue as a threat to the post-war order aligns with rhetoric Iran has used in other contexts when challenging US sanctions or military postures, but that framing does not constitute a legal or procedural argument about ICC jurisdiction.

The practical tools available to Washington to pressure the ICC include targeted sanctions on court officials, restrictions on financial transactions involving the court, diplomatic pressure on member states that host court operations or fund the tribunal, and legislative action in Congress. None of these tools requires withdrawal from a treaty Washington never joined.

The ICC's member states provide the bulk of the court's funding. The European Union and its member states are the largest collective contributors. Any sustained US campaign to reduce allied support for the court would depend on the willingness of European governments to alter their posture, which, based on past episodes, they have generally declined to do when pressed by Washington on this issue.

What remains unknown is the specific ICC action that prompted Rubio's statement, whether any formal State Department policy directive has been issued to accompany it, and whether any US allies have signaled willingness to change their relationship with the court in response. A State Department press briefing transcript or Federal Register notice would be the documents most likely to answer those questions.