Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Jan. 3, 2026. Photo: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

Iran spent decades waging a “full-scale war” on the West at the expense of the country’s most fundamental civic needs. Now public riots from Tehran to Shiraz are pushing the failed government to the brink of collapse. In response to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose parliamentary minions chant “Death to America, death to Israel,” protesters shout “Death to the dictator.” Khamenei blames the civil rebellion on the US and Israel. But legally speaking, the Ayatollah cannot make that case.

UN Charter Article 2, the international Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970, and customary international law instruct that a state may not “coercively intervene” in the affairs of another state. Scholars debate the precise meaning of coercive intervention. However, there is widespread agreement that a state may not threaten to use military force against another state without justification for such force or otherwise try to frustrate a state’s exercise of its legitimate sovereign powers.

There are many possible forms of coercive intervention. Russia cannot lawfully compel Ukraine to surrender jurisdiction over the Donbas region or require Ukraine to relinquish its right to join NATO. Saudi Arabia cannot validly pressure Qatar to defund its state-run news station.

By the same token, there is no coercive intervention where a state uses military force in self-defense against another state’s act of war. Nor is there coercive intervention when a state orders an enemy state to stop supporting a terrorist organization because terrorism is illegal and therefore not within any legitimate sovereign power. Finally, it is not coercively intervening for a group of states to oppose an enemy state through mere diplomacy or a trade embargo.

The issue of coercive intervention may arise in the context of regime change. In 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Reza Pahlavi, the most visible leader of the Iranian opposition, and discussed a potential normalization agreement called the Cyrus Accord. Cyrus the Great was the ancient Persian ruler who let the Jewish people return from exile to the Land of Israel and rebuild their temple. The Cyrus Accord emulates the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and certain Arab states. The proposed Israel-Iran pact would be signed if and when the Islamic Republic is replaced by a secular democracy.

The question for Israel was how to craft the Cyrus Accord in a way that supports the Iranian opposition without breaching the coercive intervention law. Any perceived challenge to the Supreme Leader’s authority may provoke him to violence. During periods of internal unrest like today, the Ayatollah scapegoats the US and Israel and exploits the claim as a pretext for murderous crackdowns on his own civilians, resulting in grave human rights abuses. If the despot could argue that the Cyrus Accord constitutes coercive intervention, he may feel entitled to accelerate the killing. Alternatively, he may fire missiles at Israel, as he did twice in 2024, and orchestrate attacks through his “Axis of Resistance” terror groups. That decision would unleash a storm of war crimes.

The Cyrus Accord does not amount to coercive intervention. It is a plan of mutual assistance. Perhaps the most important issue addressed by the Accord is Iran’s water crisis. Israel has pledged to relieve the drought with its unique expertise in desalination, wastewater recycling for agriculture, and advanced irrigation systems. Another major issue is Iran’s obsolete infrastructure for electricity. Israel would help upgrade the network to a smart grid and meanwhile jumpstart the development of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Other sectors of economic assistance would include cybersecurity, satellite technology, and artificial intelligence. None of these projects would threaten military force or risk depriving the Iranian leadership — present or future — of its legitimate sovereign powers.

In exchange for the above-noted economic benefits, the prospective Iranian government would cancel the nation’s threats to Israel’s national security. The new state would decommission its illegal nuclear weapons program, cut all ties to the Axis of Resistance groups, and lend Israel formal diplomatic recognition. These measures would not harm any legitimate sovereign powers.

The Ayatollah may regard the Cyrus Accord as an existential threat to himself and his regime. Indeed, the agreement would upend his ideological agenda by converting Iran from the world’s greatest sponsor of state terrorism to an ally of the West. But he cannot denounce the deal on legal grounds. If he is overthrown, he’ll have only himself to blame.

Joel M. Margolis is the legal commentator of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, the US affiliate of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.