The United Nations Charter explicitly states within Article 2 that the organization is based on the "sovereign equality" of all its members. Among its foundational principles, it further states in that:
- "All Members should settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
- "All members should refrain in their international relations from the threat or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..."
- "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter..."
It seems to me that the 1953 Iranian coup d’état was not a peaceful resolution of a dispute and used quite a bit of force -- the Iranian Prime Minister was sent to military jail, and many of his former associates and supporters were tried, imprisoned, tortured, or even executed. Since he was elected democratically, his reign was within the "domestic jurisdiction" of Iran. Furthermore, Iran was admitted into the UN in 1945, so Iran itself was presumably as equally sovereign as the US and the UK under the Charter.
The UN is an organization that is founded upon peaceful international relations and state sovereignty -- it says this in its very principles. It seems to me that the UN only really gets its power if other states recognize the authority of its branches (e.g. the International Court of Justice, and even the General Assembly, which is comprised of 193 states). If the US could go and overthrow a democratically-elected leader and get off scot-free, it seems to me that there is less incentive to trust the UN with international authority.
Is there a reason why this was not a violation of the foundational principles of the UN?