Iran protests live legal updates: Iran accuses United States of engineered regime change as UN mission warns Washington’s strategy will “FAIL AGAIN”

Iran has escalated its legal and diplomatic offensive against the United States by accusing Washington of pursuing a long standing strategy of regime change through sanctions, political destabilisation and engineered unrest, warning that such a policy violates core principles of international law and will once again fail.

In a statement posted on X, Iran’s mission to the United Nations declared that United States policy towards Tehran is built upon what it described as a familiar and unlawful playbook.

“US fantasies and policy toward Iran are rooted in regime change, with sanctions, threats, engineered unrest, and chaos serving as the modus operandi to manufacture a pretext for military intervention. This playbook has failed before. The Iranian people will defend their country and, most assuredly, it will fail again.”

The message reinforced earlier formal communications by Iran’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, who has urged the UN Secretary General and the Security Council to condemn what he describes as open incitement to violence, threats of force and interference in Iran’s internal affairs by the United States.

This exchange has transformed the protests inside Iran from a domestic political crisis into a high stakes legal and diplomatic confrontation that challenges the integrity of the international legal order, the authority of the United Nations Charter and the limits of lawful conduct by powerful states.

At the centre of Iran’s argument is the prohibition on intervention, one of the most fundamental rules of contemporary international law. Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter affirms the sovereign equality of states, while Article 2(7) explicitly bars the United Nations and its members from intervening in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Article 2(4) further prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Iran contends that repeated public calls by United States political figures for Iranians to overthrow their government, combined with economic sanctions and political pressure, amount to a systematic breach of these obligations.

The legal architecture underpinning this position is well established. The International Court of Justice, in its landmark 1986 judgment in Nicaragua v United States, held that intervention is unlawful when a state uses coercive measures to influence the political choices of another state, including support for opposition movements or actions designed to destabilise an existing government.

The Court stated that the principle of non intervention “forbids all states or groups of states to intervene directly or indirectly in internal or external affairs of other states.” Political independence, it ruled, is violated when a foreign power seeks to determine the political system or leadership of another nation.

Iran’s UN mission is explicitly framing United States conduct within this jurisprudence. By describing sanctions, threats and unrest as tools used to create a pretext for military intervention, Tehran is alleging a pattern of conduct that, if substantiated, would amount to a continuing internationally wrongful act under the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission.

Sanctions occupy a particularly controversial position in this debate. While unilateral economic sanctions are not per se illegal under international law, their use for the explicit purpose of forcing political change raises serious legal questions. Numerous UN Special Rapporteurs have argued that broad based sanctions regimes may violate international human rights law when they cause widespread civilian suffering, impede access to medicine or food, or undermine economic and social rights protected under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Iran argues that sanctions, when combined with political messaging encouraging institutional collapse, cross the line from lawful economic pressure into unlawful coercion.

The current crisis is further complicated by the digital dimension of modern diplomacy. Statements posted on social media platforms by influential political figures can reach millions within minutes and shape political behaviour inside another state. International law has yet to fully adapt to this reality.

Traditionally, unlawful intervention was associated with military action, covert operations or direct material support to insurgent groups. Today, incitement to institutional takeover, amplified through global platforms, may be equally destabilising. Iranian officials argue that this form of political communication, when conducted by leaders or former leaders of foreign powers, constitutes interference in substance even if not in form.

Iravani’s demand that the Security Council condemn such conduct is legally coherent but politically fraught. The Council is empowered under the UN Charter to address threats to international peace and security, yet its permanent membership structure ensures that any resolution criticising the United States would face near certain veto.

Nevertheless, the legal value of Iran’s complaint does not depend on immediate enforcement. Formal letters to the Secretary General and the Security Council become part of the official UN record. They may be cited in future proceedings before international courts, human rights treaty bodies or arbitration panels and contribute to the development of customary international law regarding digital era intervention.

Iran’s rhetoric also reflects a strategic effort to delegitimise the protest movement by recasting it as foreign engineered rather than domestically driven. This narrative has precedent. Following protests in 2009, 2017, 2019 and 2022, Iranian authorities similarly accused Western governments of orchestrating unrest.

From a legal standpoint, this creates a troubling dilemma. Iran is bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which it is a party, to protect freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and political participation. Internet shutdowns, mass arrests and lethal force against demonstrators raise serious questions of compliance with Articles 19, 21 and 6 of the Covenant.

Yet allegations of foreign interference allow authorities to invoke national security exceptions, which are recognised under international human rights law but must be strictly necessary and proportionate. The risk is that genuine domestic dissent becomes subsumed within a geopolitical struggle, eroding protections for civilians.

The Iranian mission’s statement that the United States seeks to manufacture a pretext for military intervention is not merely rhetorical. It echoes historical episodes that continue to shape Iranian political consciousness, particularly the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh following foreign involvement, and the prolonged sanctions and military tensions that followed the 1979 revolution.

From an international relations perspective, the confrontation highlights the growing fragmentation of the global order. Western states frequently support protest movements abroad as expressions of democratic aspiration, while states such as Iran, China and Russia increasingly frame such support as unlawful interference.

This normative divide threatens to hollow out the consensus that once underpinned the United Nations system. If calls for institutional takeover by foreign politicians are treated as legitimate political speech rather than potential violations of sovereignty, the prohibition on intervention risks becoming symbolic rather than operative.

The stakes extend beyond Iran. If regime change advocacy through digital platforms becomes normalised, any state experiencing unrest could become a battleground for rival powers seeking strategic advantage. The legal firewall between domestic politics and international coercion would erode further, replaced by an environment in which political destabilisation is an accepted instrument of foreign policy.

Iran’s assertion that the United States bears responsibility for civilian deaths resulting from unrest reflects an emerging but contested area of law. State responsibility may arise where a state knowingly aids or assists in the commission of an internationally wrongful act, provided there is a clear causal link and intent.

While proving such responsibility is exceptionally difficult, the argument itself is legally grounded. The International Law Commission recognises that encouragement or incitement may attract liability where it materially contributes to harmful outcomes.

The UN mission’s declaration that the American playbook will fail again is therefore not only a political message but a legal warning. It signals Tehran’s intention to pursue accountability through international institutions, to document alleged violations and to challenge the legitimacy of external involvement.

Whether this strategy succeeds will depend less on legal doctrine than on geopolitical power. International law remains heavily shaped by the interests of dominant states. Yet even unenforced norms exert influence over time, shaping expectations, diplomatic behaviour and the language through which legitimacy is claimed.

As protests continue and international rhetoric intensifies, the legal struggle over sovereignty, intervention and political influence is becoming as significant as events on the streets of Iranian cities.

For the international system, the crisis poses a stark question. Can the principle that nations determine their own political futures survive in an era where foreign leaders openly urge institutional collapse through social media?

Iran’s answer is unambiguous. It insists that such conduct is unlawful, destabilising and ultimately self defeating.

Whether the world accepts that position will shape not only the future of Iran’s unrest, but the boundaries of lawful state behaviour in the twenty first century.