The Legal Reach of American Humanitarianism
As protests and reports of violence grow, the political situation in Iran is proving to be more and more precarious. The possibility of foreign aid through the United States, when framed as humanitarian aid rather than geopolitical interference, seems alluring to many Iranian citizens. Though there are many pressing legal limitations that must be taken into consideration, historical precedent demonstrates that the United States has previously supported international human rights causes through sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and military intervention. Since the victory of the Iranian people is an invaluable victory not only for the country but also for global democracy and peace, carefully calibrated US intervention may be warranted. Given the Iranian regime’s violent suppression of peaceful protesters and continuous abuse of human rights, US intervention is justified due to the urgency of the political situation, which affects both Iranian citizens and international relations around the world. Previous situations that the United States has been involved in have faced varied levels of success, highlighting the importance of principled action. The complications stem from the various ways in which American foreign intervention can be carried out and the types of actions that immediately follow the disabling of the Iranian government.
Following many previous movements, the recent protests in Iran are mainly driven by economic hardships incited by the imposition of sanctions, currency collapse, and increasing inflation. As stated by Hassan Jakimian, professor of economics at SOAS, the recent protests were a direct result of “decades of chronic corruption and extensive economic mismanagement [that] were accentuated by international economic sanctions, adding to the misery of large swaths of ordinary people.” [1] The collapse of the Iranian Rial has created an overall sense of dissatisfaction and frustration toward the clerical rulers of Iran. The government has responded to these demonstrations with violence and executions, which draws attention away from international human rights organizations. [2] The only public action that the United States has taken in this situation is to announce its support for the demonstrators and their opposition to further state violence. This may be an attempt to assert moral legitimacy while staying within the boundaries of international conduct, highlighting the importance of proper management of power in fulfilling moral claims. Iranian’s continuous dissatisfaction with the structure and function of the government also gives foreign states additional incentive to intervene.
The principle of non-intervention, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, is reinforced by the United Nations Charter. [3] In addition to restricting direct military involvement, this doctrine also limits any coercive actions that influence the domains of a state’s personal jurisdiction. Another country’s intervention is considered unlawful in cases where external pressures attempt to compel another country’s political system or internal governance. While military force is clearly prohibited, other actions, such as the imposition of economic sanctions, have also been called into question when they are specifically designed to force structural changes within a political system.
Though there are legal doctrines in place that prevent the indirect influence or domination of one country over another, the United States has previously justified intervention in other ways. One of the most prominent frameworks to legitimize involvement is the Responsibility To Protect doctrine, which remodels intervention as a safeguard while also maintaining the individuality of other states. This doctrine asserts that while the responsibility of protecting citizens from war crimes, genocide, or any other crimes against humanity initially falls to the individual state, the international community has a moral justification to intervene if they fail to do so. [4] An important distinction made in this legal document is that any foreign action is contingent upon a national consensus, translating to Security Council approval in the United Nations. In this sense, unilateral intervention is still prohibited, maintaining the protection of individual states from a single, dominant national power.
One clear historical precedent for intervention within the modern state of Iran is the case of Libya in 2011. This dire political crisis was a result of violence committed by government forces in response to the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. As a result, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973, authorizing states to use “all necessary measures” to protect innocent citizens. Within the bounds of this legal document, the United States and its supporting members enforced a no-fly zone and carried out air operations against Libyan military targets. [5] This action was the furthest thing from a brash power-grab by one nation, with its legitimacy coming from the responsibility to protect within legal boundaries. This intervention in Libya provides a clear precedent for intervention within Iran as long as it is defined around civilian protection and grounded in national consensus.
While the modern realities of international politics often make coordinated and well-planned responses difficult, this framework remains a primary tool for navigating intervention within legal and moral boundaries. Within this framework, historical norms of collective security and global human rights obligations justify intervention in Iran, particularly due to widespread political persecution and state violence currently present in the country. Admittedly, the question of intervention in Iran cannot hinge solely on humanitarian concerns; it must also rely on the political and legal structure of the international community. Without certain safeguards, the principles upon which the national community is built risk being undermined and ultimately destroyed. Thus, though intervention is necessary and justified in situations like those in Iran, the legitimacy and durability of any response depend on adherence to international laws.
Edited by Sarah Guttman
Endnotes
[1] “Why Is Iran’s Economy Failing, Prompting Deadly Protests?” Al Jazeera, January 16, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2026/1/16/why-is-irans-economy-failing-prompting-deadly-protests (accessed February 12, 2026).
[2] “Iran Protests Explainer,” Reuters, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-protests-explainer-2024; Amnesty International, Iran: Human Rights Overview, https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/ (accessed February 12, 2026).
[3] United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, art. 2(4), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter.
[4] United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, “About the Responsibility to Protect,” https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml (accessed February 12, 2026).
[5] United Nations Security Council, Resolution 1973 (2011), S/RES/1973 (2011), adopted March 17, 2011.