Trump remarks weigh on Iran sovereignty debate after strikes

Trump urged Iranians to take over institutions, here are the quotes

Multiple outlets have documented recent statements in which Donald Trump urged Iranians to seize control of state institutions and framed ongoing actions as leading to political change. As reported by the Associated Press on Feb. 27, 2026, and by the Times of Israels liveblog, he appealed to Iranians to take over their government when current operations conclude.

Separate coverage has said he tied these appeals to broader regional dynamics and pressure on Tehrans leadership. The Quint reported he confirmed U.S. involvement in an attack on Tehran while calling on Iranians to act, and the Washington post noted he warned of U.S. help if protesters were killed.

These statements are being interpreted as signaling support for a transition of power in Iran, short of an overt invasion. The language has also prompted formal objections from Iranian officials on sovereignty grounds.

Why this matters for sovereignty and international law

A legal analysis published by Dickinson Law‘s Journal of Law and International Affairs underscores that the u.N. Charter’s non‑intervention norm prohibits coercive interference in another states domestic affairs. The analysis adds that even rhetorical incitement to overthrow a government can raise concerns under customary international law.

Some scholars distinguish between support framed as human‑rights protection and explicit regime‑change commitments. They caution that the latter can create significant legal exposure and diplomatic backlash at the U.N. Security Council.

Whether a specific statement violates international law often turns on intent, effects, and any accompanying state action. That is why Iranian officials have sought to put these remarks on the Security Councils record.

Iran‘s U.N. mission has filed letters placing Trump’s remarks before the Secretary‑General and the Security Council, arguing they breach the Charters sovereignty principles, according to Al Jazeera. Those communications frame the rhetoric as incitement to destabilize a member state.

Ahead of the filings, senior Iranian officials warned that outside interference would trigger serious countermeasures. As reported by the Guardian, Ali Larijani said U.S. interference would cross a red line and risk regional chaos.

Irans U.N. ambassador, Amir Saeid Iravani, characterized the comments as “reckless and provocative.” The diplomatic record indicates Tehran aims to pre‑empt escalation by documenting its legal position early.

Methodology note: This section synthesizes formal diplomatic correspondence and contemporaneous reporting to separate on‑the‑record actions from interpretation.

Possible U.S. support short of invasion: risks and limitsPotential forms: diplomatic pressure, sanctions, cyber, targeted measures

Analysts at the Middle East Forum have argued that support could take non‑invasion forms such as intensified diplomacy, calibrated sanctions, information and cyber operations, or limited targeted measures. Such tools are often designed to change cost‑benefit calculations without triggering open conflict.

Operationally, these instruments can be sequenced to test responses and avoid irreversible commitments. They also permit deniability and rapid adjustment if escalation risks rise unexpectedly.

At the time of this writing, a separate market backdrop shows Exxon Mobil shares around $152.71 in after‑hours trading, based on data from Yahoo Finance. This context is descriptive and not indicative of any policy linkage.

Risks and constraints: hardliner backlash, escalation, legal challenges

Research fellows at SWP Berlin have warned that external pressure campaigns can consolidate hardline factions in Iran by validating security‑state narratives. That dynamic can shrink civic space and complicate diplomacy.

There is also an escalation ladder to manage. Miscalculation, especially in cyber or covert domains, can prompt rapid retaliation, while legal challenges may arise in U.N. bodies or domestic courts depending on methods used.