Six months into the ongoing conflict with Iran, the concept of accountability has been distorted into a bargaining tool. However, the legal framework in place should be sufficient to address these issues.
The Current State of the Conflict
Since the military engagement began on February 28, 2026, the situation has devolved into a stalemate marked by a naval blockade and intermittent negotiations. Iran insists on reparations before it will allow the reopening of the essential Strait of Hormuz, while the United States counters with claims for compensation that stretch back over 40 years. Tragically, accountability is being manipulated as part of diplomatic negotiations rather than addressed through legal recourse, which is where it rightfully belongs.
Legal Insights on Iranian Actions
The Islamic Republic’s actions, both towards Israel and its own citizens, warrant legal examination rather than mere diplomatic discussions. The recent study by The Tehran Docket, commissioned by the Kohelet Policy Forum, identifies 23 distinct legal paths that can be pursued against the Iranian regime. Central to this study is the assertion that the justifications Iran has relied upon since the 1979 revolution no longer apply, especially when considering the increasing evidence of its direct involvement in criminal activities.
For decades, Iran has crafted a narrative of plausible deniability, often claiming that it operates through proxies. While it’s true that Iran finances groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, international law requires direct evidence of “effective control” over such entities for accountability. That’s a significant hurdle, as it allows Tehran to argue that it cannot be held responsible for actions taken by these groups. However, financial support, weapons supply, and even training for organizations that commit unlawful acts complicate this defense.
Paths to Accountability
Further avenues exist for accountability. For instance, even hosting proxy organizations and training their members can constitute a breach of international law, which the World Court recognized in 1949. With Iran hosting Hamas offices and arming Hezbollah, it is culpable for permitting its territory to be used for attacks on others.
The conflict is not solely peppered with acts committed by proxy groups. Instances of direct aggression from Iran, such as missile strikes targeting Israel, showcase its involvement. Events like the missile attack in Beit Shemesh in March 2024, which resulted in civilian casualties, along with plots to carry out attacks on European soil, reinforce the legal scrutiny needed on Iran’s state conduct.
Moving Towards Legal Action
International bodies like the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention offer expedited routes to challenge Iran’s actions, and numerous countries have successfully prosecuted Iranian officials using the concept of universal jurisdiction. These legal measures serve not just as a means of seeking justice but also as a strategic exercise to hold Iran responsible for its actions.
In conclusion, legal accountability must be prioritized over diplomatic negotiations to ensure the consequences of Iran’s actions are adequately addressed. International law provides mechanisms for these actions. It’s time to utilize them effectively, ensuring that the evidence does not fade and that accountability is not sacrificed for short-term political gains.