In Iranian civil law, exercising the right of option (Khiyar) in contracts (Uqud) is an established and accepted principle. However, nothing is explicitly stated regarding the applicability of options in unilateral legal acts (Iqa'at), such as the right of pre-emption (Akhz-e Shof'eh). Consequently, there is a divergence of opinion among jurists and legal scholars. The mainstream view holds that options do not apply to unilateral acts. Despite this consensus, some scholars dissent, challenging the mainstream arguments and presenting robust evidence to support the possibility of exercising options in unilateral acts.

This study aims to examine the feasibility of applying options to the right of pre-emption by analyzing the arguments of both proponents and opponents. Considering the proponents' reasoning, since unilateral acts—including the right of pre-emption—constitute legal acts and share fundamental principles with contracts, the general rules of contracts, such as the right of rescission, can be applied to them. This holds true provided the conditions for the option are met and it does not conflict with the inherent nature of the right of pre-emption. Therefore, how each option operates within the right of pre-emption requires careful investigation.