Iran protests live legal updates: UN envoy accuses Donald Trump of violating international law!

The already volatile confrontation surrounding the mass protests in Iran has escalated into a direct legal and diplomatic clash at the United Nations, following public remarks by former United States President Donald Trump urging Iranians to “keep protesting” and to “take over your institutions”. Tehran has responded by formally accusing him of breaching fundamental principles of international law, in a complaint delivered to both the United Nations Secretary General and the Security Council.

Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, has characterised the statements as reckless, destabilising and unlawful, asserting that they constitute an incitement to violence and a direct threat to Iran’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security. His letter demands international condemnation of the United States and Israel and calls for an immediate cessation of what Iran describes as systematic interference in its internal affairs.

This confrontation is not merely rhetorical. It raises profound questions about the limits of political speech by foreign leaders, the scope of lawful expression under international law, and the increasingly fragile boundary between moral support for protest movements and unlawful intervention in the domestic affairs of sovereign states.

At the centre of the dispute lies one of the most entrenched principles of the post Second World War international order: the prohibition on intervention in the internal affairs of states. This principle is codified in Article 2(1) and Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter, which together affirm sovereign equality and bar external actors from intervening in matters that fall within a state’s domestic jurisdiction. Article 2(4) further prohibits the threat or use of force against the political independence of any state.

While Trump is no longer in office, his status as a former head of state and an active political figure with substantial influence in the United States gives his words weight that extends far beyond that of a private citizen. In the context of international law, the distinction between official policy and influential political advocacy is increasingly blurred, particularly when statements are capable of encouraging mass political action in a foreign country experiencing civil unrest.

The International Court of Justice has long held that intervention is unlawful when it involves coercive measures intended to influence the political choices of another state. In its 1986 judgment in Nicaragua v United States, the Court concluded that even indirect actions, including support for opposition forces and psychological or political pressure, may breach international law when they aim to shape the internal political order of another nation.

Trump’s call for Iranians to seize control of their institutions can reasonably be interpreted as an exhortation to overthrow the existing constitutional system. From a strictly legal perspective, such language approaches the threshold of prohibited intervention, particularly when issued by a figure closely associated with a state that has a long history of sanctions, covert operations and diplomatic confrontation with Iran.

Iravani’s letter to the United Nations is carefully framed within this legal architecture. By invoking sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security, Iran is signalling potential violations of the Charter, customary international law and the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations, which explicitly prohibits states from organising, assisting or encouraging subversive or violent activities aimed at the overthrow of another government.

The ambassador further alleges that Trump’s remarks incite violence. If such incitement were to be shown to have materially contributed to deaths or serious injuries, Tehran could argue that the United States bears international responsibility for aiding or facilitating wrongful acts, under the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission.

Although the practical likelihood of the Security Council adopting binding measures is low, given the political influence of the United States and its allies, the legal significance of the complaint should not be underestimated. Formal registration of such accusations creates an official documentary record that may be invoked in future proceedings before international courts, human rights bodies or arbitral tribunals.

This dispute also intersects with the broader question of freedom of expression under international law. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of opinion and expression, including political speech. However, that freedom is not absolute. It may be restricted to protect national security, public order and the rights of others. More importantly, the covenant binds states, not private individuals, and does not legitimise acts that constitute unlawful intervention in another country’s political system.

The legal ambiguity is sharpened by the evolving nature of political communication in the digital age. A single post on a social media platform can reach millions instantaneously, mobilise populations and destabilise governments. International law, largely drafted in an era of formal diplomatic correspondence and state controlled broadcasting, has struggled to adapt to this reality.

Iran’s appeal to the United Nations also reflects a broader strategic calculation. By internationalising the dispute, Tehran seeks to reframe the protest movement not as a purely domestic crisis rooted in social and economic grievances, but as part of a foreign orchestrated campaign of destabilisation. This narrative has been a consistent feature of Iranian state discourse during previous waves of unrest.

From a human rights perspective, this presents a dangerous paradox. Iran is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is legally obligated to protect freedom of assembly, expression and political participation. Internet shutdowns, mass arrests and lethal force against demonstrators are widely viewed by legal scholars as violations of these obligations. Yet allegations of foreign interference, whether accurate or exaggerated, provide political cover for further repression under the banner of national security.

The inclusion of Israel in Iravani’s complaint is equally significant. It follows recent remarks by Israel’s former defence minister Yoav Gallant advocating covert influence over the protests. Together, these developments reinforce Iran’s claim that external powers are actively seeking regime change, a claim that resonates deeply in a country shaped by the memory of the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh with foreign involvement.

The international response to Iran’s complaint will be a critical test of the credibility of the rules based international order. Western governments have long championed the right of peoples to protest and resist authoritarian governance. At the same time, they have insisted that sovereignty and non intervention remain cornerstones of global stability.

Balancing these principles is legally and morally complex. Support for human rights cannot lawfully extend to explicit calls for the overthrow of another government by foreign political figures, particularly when those calls may contribute to violence and instability. International law draws a clear distinction between expressing concern for human rights and actively encouraging the dismantling of another state’s political institutions.

If Trump’s remarks are normalised, the precedent would be far reaching. It would legitimise similar statements by leaders of powerful states directed at fragile or adversarial governments across the globe, from Eastern Europe to Southeast Asia, transforming domestic protest movements into arenas of great power rivalry.

Iravani’s assertion that the United States and Israel bear legal responsibility for the deaths of civilians is, in strict legal terms, difficult to prove. International responsibility requires a demonstrable causal link between the conduct in question and the harm suffered. However, the argument is not frivolous. The law of state responsibility recognises that encouragement or incitement may attract liability when it plays a substantial role in enabling wrongful acts.

Ultimately, this episode exposes the profound fragility of international legal restraints in an era of polarised geopolitics and digital communication. It also underscores how rapidly legitimate concern for democratic freedoms can be weaponised into tools of strategic influence.

For the people of Iran, the consequences are immediate and tangible. Each escalation in international rhetoric increases the risk that peaceful protest will be reframed as foreign subversion, justifying further crackdowns. For the international community, the stakes are systemic. If the prohibition on intervention is allowed to erode under the pressure of populist diplomacy and social media politics, the legal order constructed after 1945 may give way to a world in which power, not law, determines the fate of nations.

Whether the United Nations Security Council acts or not, the legal record has been set in motion. Trump’s words, and Iran’s response, will now form part of the growing body of evidence that the boundaries between domestic politics and international legality are being dangerously redrawn.

In the silence between official statements and the noise of digital platforms, one reality remains constant: when foreign leaders urge the citizens of another country to seize their institutions, it is not merely political theatre. It is a challenge to the most basic rule of international coexistence, that the destiny of a people must be decided by themselves, not scripted from abroad.