How the Alleged US-Israel Regime-Change Plot in Iran Raises Questions of Sovereignty, the Prohibition of Use of Force, and International Accountability

The United States and Israel reportedly explored a coordinated regime-change operation targeting the Islamic Republic of Iran, focusing on former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a prospective leader after a series of alleged kinetic strikes were said to have eliminated several senior Iranian officials and the Supreme Leader, thereby creating a perceived power vacuum that external actors allegedly sought to exploit. The covert plan, which sources described as having been devised by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, allegedly intended to install Ahmadinejad despite his previously documented hardline positions, reasoning that his political profile could be manipulated to serve the strategic objectives of the sponsoring states while presenting a façade of domestic legitimacy within Iran’s complex political landscape. According to the same accounts, the initiative collapsed abruptly after an Israeli strike purportedly struck Ahmadinejad’s residence, resulting in his disappearance from public view and leaving his current whereabouts unknown, thereby terminating the immediate feasibility of the proposed leadership transition and underscoring the volatile character of clandestine foreign interventions in sovereign affairs. The overall narrative, as conveyed by the available information, underscores a scenario in which alleged extraterritorial military actions, intelligence-driven political engineering, and the abrupt termination of a covert operation intersect, raising substantive questions concerning the applicability of international legal norms governing the use of force, state responsibility, and the protection of sovereign equality among nations.

One question is whether the alleged planning and execution of kinetic strikes against Iranian leadership, undertaken by foreign states without the consent of the targeted jurisdiction, constitute a breach of the principle of non-intervention embedded in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The answer may depend on the interpretation of ‘use of force’ in the context of covert operations, where the lack of overt military engagement does not necessarily absolve the acting states from liability under customary international law that defines any armed action intended to coerce a government as a prohibited use of force. Perhaps the more important legal issue is whether the alleged targeted killings, if verified, could be classified as extrajudicial executions, thereby triggering obligations under international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which safeguards the right to life and requires any deprivation of life to be strictly necessary, proportionate, and subject to independent judicial review.

Another possible view is that the alleged strike on Ahmadinejad’s residence, resulting in his disappearance, raises the question of whether such an act falls within the legal parameters of a targeted killing permissible in an armed conflict, demanding an analysis of whether an international armed conflict existed between the involved states and Iran, and if so, whether the principles of distinction, necessity, and proportionality were adhered to under international humanitarian law. A competing view may argue that absent an armed conflict, the use of lethal force against an individual on foreign soil would be unlawful, invoking the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life and potentially exposing the responsible state to accusations of state-sponsored terrorism under various United Nations resolutions and customary norms.

Perhaps the constitutional concern is whether the external promotion of a former Iranian president, regardless of his prior service, undermines the principle of self-determination, which obliges peoples to freely determine their political status without external interference, thereby raising the issue of whether the sponsoring states’ actions contravene the right of peoples to freely choose their government as enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The legal position would turn on whether any domestic mechanism in Iran could legitimately recognize an externally imposed leader, and whether the breach of the non-intervention principle would invalidate any subsequent claims to legitimacy, potentially leading to a situation where the installed authority lacks both de-jure and de-facto recognition in the international community.

A further legal question may arise concerning state responsibility for the actions of covert agencies such as Mossad, where international law attributes the conduct of non-combatant personnel to the state, thereby imposing obligations on the state to make reparation for internationally wrongful acts, and raising the possibility of claims before international tribunals or the United Nations Security Council for accountability and remedial measures. If a fuller legal assessment were to consider the doctrine of due diligence, it would examine whether the sponsoring states took reasonable measures to prevent the planning of an unlawful regime-change operation, and whether their failure to do so could be deemed a breach of their duty to ensure that their territory is not used to launch attacks that violate the sovereignty of another state.

In sum, the reported covert operation, its abrupt failure, and the disappearance of the intended political figure collectively illustrate the complex interplay between clandestine foreign policy initiatives and the body of international law that seeks to regulate the use of force, protect sovereign equality, and uphold human rights, thereby underscoring the need for robust legal scrutiny of such actions. The safer legal view would depend upon clearer factual determinations, but the present narrative suggests that any state contemplating similar interventions must carefully weigh the legal consequences under the United Nations Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights treaties, lest they expose themselves to international condemnation, reparations claims, and potential counter-measures in the diplomatic arena.