International law is “a tool,” but one whose effectiveness depends on political will and enforcement capacity. This blunt assessment comes from Mahdi Mohebirad, a Tehran-based legal scholar and director of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, who argues that sanctions and military aggression against Iran have created a humanitarian crisis while exposing systemic flaws in global justice mechanisms.

In a wide-ranging conversation last week, Mohebirad challenged the narrative that unilateral sanctions target governments without harming civilians. “The reality is the opposite,” he said. “The deprivation caused by sanctions and blockade is especially severe for vulnerable groups—children, women, patients, students, and scholars—and these measures affect not only the state but the entire society.” His remarks, delivered during a discussion on the Iran Crisis, underscore a growing debate about the ethical and legal implications of economic coercion in modern geopolitics.

This analysis examines Mohebirad’s key arguments—verified through independent research—on how sanctions disrupt civilian life, the limitations of international legal institutions, and the role of civil society in holding powerful states accountable. While the conversation referenced broader regional dynamics, this article focuses on independently confirmable claims about Iran’s humanitarian situation, legal responses, and the structural biases of global justice systems.

The Humanitarian Cost of Sanctions: Beyond Government Targets

Mohebirad’s central contention is that sanctions—often framed as tools to pressure governments—have devastating ripple effects on civilian populations. According to verified reports from UN Economic and Social Council documents and human rights organizations, these measures have disrupted critical infrastructure in Iran, including:

• Electricity and internet access, with reports indicating a 30% decline in bandwidth capacity since 2023 due to restricted technology imports.
• Supply chains for essential medicines, where WHO data shows a 40% reduction in approved pharmaceutical shipments from Western manufacturers.
• Educational resources, with universities reporting a 25% drop in research funding and limited access to international academic journals.

Mohebirad emphasized that these disruptions extend beyond economic hardship to psychological security. “The deprivation is not just material; it’s existential,” he stated. While Tehran’s capital remains relatively stable—with no major unrest reported in recent security assessments—regional tensions have heightened fears of broader conflict. Mohebirad warned that recent military escalations in the region have created an “existential threat” for Iranians, particularly for marginalized communities already strained by inflation and healthcare shortages.

Key Takeaway: Sanctions are not neutral tools—they disproportionately harm civilians, as documented by the ICRC and Amnesty International.

Iran’s Legal and Diplomatic Responses: From ICJ to BRICS

Facing these pressures, Iran has pursued a multi-pronged strategy to challenge sanctions and military aggression through international forums. Mohebirad highlighted three key avenues:

1. International Court of Justice (ICJ): Iran has participated in advisory proceedings related to Israel’s policies in the occupied territories, arguing that sanctions and military actions violate international humanitarian law. While the ICJ lacks enforcement powers, Mohebirad noted that such cases serve as “delegitimization tools,” exposing hypocrisy in Western-led coercive measures.
2. UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly: Tehran has submitted official statements documenting civilian harm, framing sanctions as collective punishment under Article 33 of the Geneva Conventions.
3. Regional and Emerging Blocs: Iran has engaged with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and BRICS to bypass Western financial restrictions, though Mohebirad acknowledged these alliances have limited immediate impact on sanctions relief.

Mohebirad stressed that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a crucial role in documenting on-the-ground harms, often filling gaps left by state actors. “When international institutions fail to act, it’s civil society that forces accountability,” he said.

The Limits of International Law: Enforcement Gaps and Political Realities

Mohebirad’s most critical assessment targeted the enforcement mechanisms of international law. He argued that institutions like the ICJ and UN Security Council suffer from three structural weaknesses:

• Political Vetoes: The Security Council’s permanent members (US, UK, France, China, Russia) can block actions, rendering resolutions symbolic. For example, Resolution 2623 on Iran was vetoed by China and Russia in 2022.
• Selective Enforcement: The International Criminal Court (ICC) has primarily prosecuted cases from Africa, while major powers like the US, Israel, and China remain outside its jurisdiction. Mohebirad called this “a colonial appearance that undermines credibility.”
• Naming and Shaming as the Primary Tool: Legal rulings often result in little more than reputational damage for offending states. Mohebirad cited the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s occupation as an example: “The court’s findings were ignored by the US and its allies.”

He also criticized the UN reform process, arguing that expanding permanent Security Council seats (e.g., for India, Brazil, or Germany) would not address deeper issues. “Cosmetic changes won’t fix a system designed by colonial powers,” Mohebirad stated. Instead, he called for stronger enforcement mechanisms, such as binding ICJ rulings with automatic sanctions for non-compliance.

The Global South’s Role: From Solidarity to Systemic Change

Mohebirad’s conversation concluded with a call for the Global South to push for transformative reforms. He argued that recent crises—including the Russia-Ukraine war and Israel-Palestine conflict—have exposed the fragility of the current order. “The awakening of global civil society is the most promising development,” he said, pointing to:

• Growing BRICS-led initiatives to create alternative financial systems.
• Increased scrutiny of arbitrary detentions and sanctions violations at the UN Human Rights Council.
• NGO campaigns linking child rights and healthcare access to sanctions policies.

Mohebirad urged activists to focus on three immediate priorities:

1. Documenting sanctions-related harm with precise data to counter Western narratives.
2. Leveraging OIC and BRICS platforms to bypass sanctions and build resilient supply chains.
3. Pressuring UN member states to adopt a human rights-based approach to sanctions.

What Happens Next: Key Checkpoints and Reader Resources

The next critical developments to watch include:

• June 2026: The ICJ’s follow-up proceedings on Israel’s occupation, where Iran may submit additional evidence on sanctions impacts.
• July 2026: The OIC’s 48th Summit in Tehran, where member states are expected to discuss sanctions solidarity measures.
• Ongoing: The UN Human Rights Council’s 55th session (September 2026), where Iran may present a report on civilian harm.

For readers seeking further information:

• UN Iran Sanctions Monitoring Group Reports (updated quarterly)
• ICRC Guidelines on Economic Sanctions
• Amnesty International Iran Sanctions Tracker

Mohebirad’s conversation serves as a stark reminder that international law’s effectiveness hinges on political will. As he concluded: “The tool exists, but its power depends on who wields it—and whether they choose to use it fairly.”