this is the part you stated
well exactly which part happened in Iranian land
more importanly were its stated you can attack somebody who is not neutral and were is the evidence iran supplied any weapon to Russia after the war .
ps. the date must be between the start of war till yesterday . according to some Ukrainian politician Ukraine staged the failed attack in Isfahan and as a result they are aggressor and we have the right to defend ourselves how ever we deem appropriate
Neutrality is a legal status, one that is declared to be. However, you can be biased and still immune from attacks by the belligerents as long as you do not provide
MATERIEL support. Intelligence support is a grey area so we can leave that out -- for now.
Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.
Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.
Even though article 4 has 'Corps of combatants', everyone understand that arms are critical components of 'combatants'. You do not send 'combatants' into battles with no weapons, right? So by logical extension, if you provide only arms, you have aided and abetted
A belligerent just as if you sent only soldiers. If you previously stated that you are 'neutral', then you essentially violated your public oath of neutrality. If you never declared 'neutrality' and/or stated that you do take a side, now by providing arms, you became an
ACTIVE belligerent on one side. Let us get this understanding out of the way.
Whether Iran is or was an active belligerent with Russia or not rests on materiel evidence and this is where you, defending Iran, is on shaky grounds. If we can chemically trace the origins of nuclear wastes, what make you think we cannot determine with a high degree of certainty, the manufacturing origin of a rifle? Or something with plenty of manufacturing clues like a complex aircraft? A UAV is an aircraft.