NAVIGATING US INTERVENTION IN IRAN AND MODES OF SETTLEMENT OF THIS DISPUTE IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Abstract

For over seven decades, United States intervention in Iran has generated one of the most persistent disputes in modern international relations, raising fundamental questions of sovereignty, non-intervention, and the prohibition of the use of force under the United Nations Charter. From the coup of the early nineteen fifties to economic sanctions, cyber operations, and the targeted killing of a senior Iranian general, the relationship provides a clear framework for examining state practice. This article adopts a doctrinal and case study approach to assess the effectiveness of the peaceful settlement methods listed in the Charter, namely negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial settlement. The study finds that while judicial settlement clarifies legal obligations and negotiation produces political outcomes, the overall dispute demonstrates that lasting resolution requires the combined and consistent use of peaceful means supported by political will.