Iran protest live legal updates: Former Israeli defence minister’s call for covert influence

The already combustible crisis unfolding in Iran has entered a far more dangerous legal and geopolitical dimension following remarks by Israel’s former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, who has publicly advocated covert Israeli involvement in shaping the trajectory of the protests. His call for Israel to guide events through what he described as an “invisible hand” does not merely inflame regional tensions. It strikes at the foundations of modern international law, state sovereignty and the fragile architecture governing non intervention in the internal affairs of states.

Gallant’s comments, broadcast on Israeli Army Radio and reported internationally, come at a moment when Iran is experiencing widespread unrest, severe restrictions on communications, and heightened scrutiny from global human rights bodies. That a senior former security official of a foreign state would openly suggest indirect operational involvement in domestic protests in another sovereign nation is extraordinary. It is legally explosive.

Even more striking is the personal legal context of the speaker himself. Gallant is currently wanted by the International Criminal Court in connection with alleged war crimes committed during Israeli military operations in Gaza. While the presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of international criminal law, the existence of an active ICC arrest warrant fundamentally alters the weight and implications of his statements. It situates them within a broader pattern of alleged disregard for international humanitarian norms and heightens the scrutiny under which his words must be examined.

At the heart of the controversy lies the principle of state sovereignty, enshrined in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter. This principle is reinforced by Article 2(4), which prohibits not only the use of force but also threats against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Equally significant is Article 2(7), which bars intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.

While international law does distinguish between overt military action and more subtle forms of influence, the prohibition on intervention is not limited to tanks and missiles. The International Court of Justice, in its landmark judgment in Nicaragua v United States (1986), held that the provision of support to armed groups, covert operations and political destabilisation efforts can constitute unlawful intervention when they aim to coerce the political system of another state.

Gallant’s language is unambiguous. Advocating for Israel to “direct things with an invisible hand” during mass protests constitutes, in legal terms, a call for covert interference in Iran’s internal political processes. Whether such influence would take the form of intelligence operations, cyber activity, financial support to opposition groups, or information warfare, the legal character would remain the same: intervention designed to alter the political order of another sovereign state.

Such conduct, if carried out, would violate customary international law, the UN Charter and multiple General Assembly resolutions, including the Declaration on Friendly Relations of 1970, which explicitly prohibits states from organising, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another state.

From a regional security perspective, the implications are severe. Iran and Israel are already engaged in a long running shadow conflict encompassing cyber operations, targeted killings, maritime incidents and proxy warfare across Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Public confirmation that Israeli figures are contemplating interference in Iranian domestic unrest risks transforming this covert confrontation into open escalation.

Iran’s government would almost certainly frame any foreign involvement as proof that protests are orchestrated by hostile powers. Historically, Tehran has repeatedly invoked external interference to justify repression. Gallant’s remarks hand the Iranian authorities precisely the narrative they seek: that unrest is not a domestic expression of grievance but a foreign engineered destabilisation campaign. In legal terms, this could be weaponised to rationalise emergency powers, military deployments and further suppression, notwithstanding their incompatibility with Iran’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Under that covenant, Iran is legally bound to respect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and political participation. Internet shutdowns, mass arrests and the use of lethal force against demonstrators already place the state in breach of these commitments. However, credible evidence of foreign covert involvement would muddy the waters in international forums, allowing Tehran to claim national security necessity and exceptional circumstances, arguments that although weak in law, are often politically effective.

Gallant’s intervention also carries ramifications for Israel itself. Advocacy for covert regime change operations is not merely a strategic posture. It exposes the Israeli state to potential legal responsibility if such actions are executed. Under the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission, a state bears responsibility for conduct attributable to it that breaches international obligations. Covert operations do not enjoy legal immunity simply because they are clandestine.

Moreover, individual criminal liability could arise if interference contributes to serious human rights violations. International criminal law increasingly recognises complicity and indirect responsibility. Should foreign involvement materially facilitate violence against civilians, arbitrary detentions or torture, those responsible may one day face prosecution under universal jurisdiction statutes in foreign courts, even if the International Criminal Court itself lacks jurisdiction over the territory concerned.

Gallant’s own legal exposure deepens the irony and gravity of the situation. As a figure sought by the ICC, his call for manipulation of another state’s internal crisis will resonate sharply in The Hague and beyond. It reinforces the perception, already prevalent among many international lawyers and human rights organisations, that some senior Israeli officials view international legal constraints as negotiable inconveniences rather than binding obligations.

The diplomatic consequences are equally stark. European states, which have repeatedly urged restraint in Iran while maintaining fragile negotiations on nuclear non proliferation and sanctions compliance, will view any Israeli destabilisation efforts as a dangerous complication. China and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council and strategic partners of Tehran, would almost certainly treat confirmed Israeli interference as a provocation justifying expanded support for Iran.

In Washington, the situation is acutely sensitive. The United States has publicly expressed support for the rights of Iranian protestors while insisting it is not seeking regime change through force. Any perception that a close ally is acting covertly to steer protests risks undermining American diplomatic positioning and could expose the United States to accusations of indirect complicity.

There is also a profound ethical dimension. Protest movements derive legitimacy from their authenticity and domestic roots. External manipulation corrodes that legitimacy, endangers demonstrators and transforms civil resistance into a proxy battlefield. International human rights law is predicated on the protection of peoples, not the instrumentalisation of their suffering for geopolitical advantage.

Gallant’s statement therefore stands not as a casual remark but as a case study in how reckless rhetoric can destabilise already fragile legal norms. It underscores how rapidly legitimate concern for human rights can be eclipsed by strategic opportunism, and how quickly the line between solidarity and subversion can be crossed.

As Iran’s protests continue amid communication blackouts and mounting casualties, the focus of the international community should remain firmly on protecting civilians, restoring access to information, and ensuring accountability for abuses. The introduction of foreign covert agendas, particularly by figures already entangled in international criminal proceedings, threatens to contaminate that effort and to transform a struggle for rights into yet another theatre of regional conflict.

In the cold language of international law, Gallant’s proposal is unlawful intervention. In the human reality of the streets of Tehran, it is something worse: an additional danger imposed upon people already confronting batons, bullets and silence.

The coming days will reveal whether his remarks remain rhetorical or evolve into policy. If the latter occurs, the legal consequences will reverberate far beyond Iran, testing the credibility of the international legal order itself at a time when its authority is already under historic strain.