Six months after the onset of escalating hostilities involving Iran, a fragile status quo has emerged characterized by a naval blockade, the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and intermittent, stalled negotiations. Tehran insists on reparations as a precondition to reopening the strategically vital waterway, while the United States demands compensation for grievances dating back several decades. Amid these stalemates, questions of legal accountability for Iran’s actions remain a contentious and unresolved issue.
A recent study produced by the Kohelet Policy Forum, titled The Tehran Docket, explores 23 potential legal pathways to hold Iran responsible for its conduct. Central to the analysis is the contention that Tehran can no longer rely on the longstanding defense that it acts indirectly through proxies. Since 1979, Iran has maintained a degree of plausible deniability by supporting various armed groups—including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq and Syria—while distancing itself from direct involvement in their attacks.
International law requires establishing “effective control” by a state over the specific actions of its proxies for direct legal responsibility to be assigned. This high standard, affirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua case, complicates efforts to hold Iran liable solely on the basis of the armed groups’ actions. Nonetheless, The Tehran Docket asserts that other legal doctrines may apply, including the principle that a state must not permit its territory to be used as a base for attacks against other nations, a violation recognized by the ICJ in 1949. Iran’s hosting of proxy offices, training camps, and weapons stockpiles on its soil could constitute breaches of international obligations.
Furthermore, some Iranian attacks have been unmistakably direct. Ballistic missile strikes targeting Israeli territory have occurred repeatedly since April 2024, including a deadly assault on a public shelter in Beit Shemesh in March 2026 that caused nine fatalities. Additional Iranian activities include alleged assassination plots in Europe and executions of prisoners accused of espionage for Israel. Certain actions may qualify as war crimes under treaties related to the International Criminal Court.
The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on February 28, 2026, does not absolve the state of responsibility, as the office’s immunity transfers to his successor, and legal accountability persists regardless of leadership changes.
Several mechanisms exist to pursue justice, some more expedient than others. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention offers a relatively prompt forum, potentially ruling within 6 to 12 months on cases such as that of Ahmadreza Djalali, an Iranian detainee on death row since 2017. National courts in several countries—including Germany and Argentina—have exercised universal jurisdiction to prosecute Iranian officials. Sweden’s 2022 conviction of Hamid Nouri, an Iranian official, demonstrates the viability and risks of such actions, evidenced by Tehran’s retaliatory release of detainees.
Civil litigation in the United States has resulted in substantial judgments against Iran for historical terrorist attacks, with courts allowing victims to claim compensation from Iranian state assets. At the highest level, the International Court of Justice remains a potential venue for cases under the Genocide Convention, to which Iran is a party.
Critics note that international bodies, especially the United Nations Human Rights Council, demonstrate perceived bias against Israel, complicating efforts to present Iran as a violator. Advocates argue that by presenting clear and credible evidence, these institutions can be compelled to uphold legal standards, thereby delivering enduring accountability beyond the reach of political settlements.
This evolving legal landscape underscores a broader debate over whether justice for Iran’s actions will be treated as a negotiable commodity or as an inviolable principle enforced through judicial mechanisms. Observers note that while the legal frameworks and precedents exist to pursue accountability, what remains lacking is the political will to do so promptly and decisively while evidence remains unobstructed.