By using various provisions of emerging pieces of incitement law, this article shows that there is an analytical framework for the prosecution of the Iranian president. There are three forums for such a prosecution: The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and municipal courts. Two distinct crimes could be the basis of such legal action: direct and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity (persecution). Prosecution before the ICC through a referral from the United Nations Security Council would be the most viable option and would confer the advantage of support from the international community. Any successful prosecution of the Iranian president would require acceptance of the incitement precedent, which is not technically required in international law; a minimal expansion of current doctrine and conventional wisdom; and selecting charges that preserve freedom of expression. Still, the author advises that in the current political and legal environment, it is not likely that such a prosecution could occur. It may require incontrovertible proof of Iran’s nuclear-weapons capacity and the positioning of its fortified missiles to point directly toward Israel. Only then would the international legal community seriously consider judicial action against Iran’s president. Unfortunately, that might be too late. 424 notes