by Bernd Müller
[This article posted on 6/19/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/So-geht-das-Voelkerrecht-zugrunde-mit-donnerndem-Applaus-10452693.html.%5D
Politicians and the media are cheering Israel’s attack on Iran, which violates international law. This weakens the position of the West. A commentary.
This year marked the 20th anniversary of the film “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith.” Those who saw it in theaters in 2005 may remember the debates it sparked.
Princess Amidala (Padmé) attends a meeting of the Galactic Senate, where the Chancellor announces that the Republic will be transformed into an empire. Visibly shocked by the thunderous applause of the senators, she utters her famous line: “So this is how liberty dies: with thunderous applause.”
At the time, this sentence was given special significance: The US had previously invaded and occupied Iraq in violation of international law. The George W. Bush administration had also passed laws such as the Patriot Act, which not only restricted freedoms but also massively expanded government surveillance. Many commentators interpreted Amidala’s statement as an allusion to US militaristic policy, but director George Lucas denied this.
We have now reached a similar point today: international law is dying – and politicians and journalists in Germany are applauding this. Until a few days ago, they had sworn to protect international law and make it the guiding principle of political action, but then they did an about-turn with Israel’s war of aggression against Iran, which violates international law: Anyone who refers to the prohibition of violence in the UN Charter is labeled a friend of the mullahs, degenerate, or an idiot and shouted down.
Chancellor Merz applauds “dirty work”
For Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU), the Israelis are just doing the “dirty work” for everyone. “I can only say: I have the utmost respect for the Israeli army for having the courage to do this, and for the Israeli leadership for having the courage to do this.” Why do we still need the UN Charter if we no longer want to abide by its rules as soon as they stand in the way of our interests?
There is still no evidence that Iran is actually on the verge of building nuclear weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been peddling this claim for around 30 years – and each time, the Iranians have supposedly been on the verge of building the bomb. Even the 18 US intelligence agencies confirmed in March that Iran was not actively seeking to build a nuclear bomb. Furthermore, the Iranian leadership has not revived the nuclear bomb program that was shut down in 2003.
Merz is not only legitimizing a war of aggression that violates international law, he is also giving all other countries in the world a free pass to wage war. After all, reasons can always be found – and without any obligation to comply with international law, they cannot be condemned.
Netanyahu’s goal: reshaping the face of the Middle East
The argument repeatedly points out that the aim is only to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb. From Israel’s point of view, however, there is much more at stake: Netanyahu has said it many times in the past – and said it again recently – that the goal is to completely reshape the face of the Middle East. Netanyahu thus declared the region to be Israel’s sphere of influence, without anyone contradicting him.
Advertisement
Thinking in terms of spheres of influence? For three years, European countries have been tirelessly emphasizing that this way of thinking is outdated when it comes to Ukraine. After all, they say, all countries are sovereign. But in the case of Israel’s plans, it seems that once again a different standard is being applied.
Julian Reichelt: “International law does not exist”
The new view of international law is expressed by Julian Reichelt, who is popular with right-wing extremists. He writes on X (formerly Twitter):
I hate to break it to you, but international law does not exist. It never has, it never will. It is a completely worthless piece of paper that has always only protected monsters and dictatorships. Anyone who argues with international law is simply not very smart.
(Image: Screenshot / X)
Anyone who argues with the UN Charter is not particularly smart? The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is just a worthless piece of paper? That is hubris in its purest form.
Eva Illouz argues from an Israel-centric perspective – but her criticisms also apply to the US
Sociologist Eva Illouz argues in a more moderate and certainly more intelligent tone in Die Zeit (June 18, 2025). She describes Iran as a repressive system – which it is – that poses a danger to Israel and threatens the existence of the Jewish state.
However, her argument suffers from one weakness: it is Israel-centric. Many of her criticisms could easily be applied to the US. She writes about the Iranian state: “It monitors, oppresses, tortures, imprisons people – and kills women in particular.” With the exception of the last point, this could also be a description of the situation in the US. Except that it is not women in particular who are being killed, but thousands of people worldwide who have been extrajudicially executed in drone strikes.
Read also
No one has any intention of waging a war of aggression against Iran!
Telepolis
Decolonizing Russia: Does the West want to dismantle the Russian Federation?
Telepolis
Trump and the Iran war: Make division great again
Telepolis
Illouz cites statements by Iranian politicians that are supposed to prove that they want Israel’s destruction. Well, this is not to be disputed, but Illouz fails to mention that the hatred is also fueled by sources other than anti-Semitism. Many Iranians will certainly remember that Israel helped the Shah’s secret service brutally oppress the Iranian people. It is also ignored that Hamas and Hezbollah emerged in response to Israeli occupation. Today’s hatred of Israel in the region has a history.
But fantasies of annihilation, as put forward by Illouz, are not unique to Iranians, but could just as easily come from Washington – with a different enemy, of course. Didn’t former US President Ronald Reagan declare the Soviet Union to be the evil of the world? Didn’t US strategists debate in the 1990s how to fillet Russia? These intentions have not been completely abandoned to this day. And haven’t NATO weapons been moved ever closer to the Russian border, so that they could be perceived as an existential threat in Moscow?
The current debate suffers not only from being moralistic, one-sided, and not based on international law. It also weakens the Western position against Russia. If you grant one country the right to launch a preemptive strike against a perceived threat in front of the entire world, you can hardly deny that right to another country without losing your credibility.
And so politicians and the media applaud—as if it were Star Wars—an act of aggression whose consequences could one day turn against them.
_____________________________________________________________
No one intends to wage a war of aggression against Iran!
[This article posted on 6/19/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Niemand-hat-die-Absicht-einen-Angriffskrieg-gegen-den-Iran-zu-fuehren-10452158.html.%5D
Trump threatens Iran with war. He insists he has not made a decision. But his words are reminiscent of another historic moment.
The world is watching Washington with bated breath as US President Donald Trump holds the future of the Middle East in his hands. In his press conference yesterday in the Oval Office, he chose unusually harsh words toward Iran. The situation is clearly escalating. A few hours after the press conference, US media reported last night that an attack on Iran was imminent. However, Donald Trump had not yet made a decision.
On closer inspection, a disturbing pattern emerged yesterday afternoon: Trump’s rhetoric was fatally reminiscent of another historic moment that changed the world. “Quite simply, if anyone thinks it’s okay for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, then they should oppose me. But nobody thinks it’s okay,” the president said.
He continued: “The bottom line is: they cannot have nuclear weapons. You will have to make a decision because you may have to fight to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons.”
The US, Israel, and the invention of the Iranian threat
Telepolis
Iran war based on misconceptions: How US senators are ignoring intelligence reports
Telepolis
At the same time, however, Trump emphasized: “We are not seeking a ceasefire, but a total and complete victory. And, as I said, you know what victory means: no nuclear weapons.” He leaves no doubt that he sees no room for negotiation and is effectively leaving Iran with only two choices: submission, i.e., abandoning its nuclear program, or war.
Fateful moments
This apparent contradiction—on the one hand, the threat of war, on the other, the assertion that no decision has yet been made—brings to mind another fateful moment in history.
“Nobody has any intention of building a wall,” declared Walter Ulbricht, chairman of the East German State Council, at a press conference on June 15, 1961.
Just two months later, construction began on the Berlin Wall, which would divide Germany and the German people for decades; it was, so to speak, the visible part of the Iron Curtain that separated the West from each other.
False reassurance
Ulbricht’s statement was intended to reassure the world and give the impression that the GDR leadership was not planning any drastic steps. But in reality, the die had long been cast. The parallels to Trump’s statements are obvious:
He, too, is trying to maintain the illusion that not all options are off the table, while his rhetoric (and massive troop deployments) clearly point to war.
Just one step away from explosion
Experts have long warned that the verbal exchange between Washington and Tehran could escalate into a hot conflict at any moment. Trump’s uncompromising stance, his threats, and his refusal to leave any room for negotiation seem to make this scenario inevitable.
Like Ulbricht in 1961, he is trying to lull the world into a false sense of security, while he has long since set course for escalation.
The moment is now
The international community must not be fooled by this rhetorical diversionary tactic. It must act now and do everything in its power to break the spiral of escalation before it is too late.
For history teaches us that when powerful people say they are not planning any drastic steps, the highest vigilance is called for. Trump’s press conference on Wednesday could go down in history as a grim omen—as the moment when the world failed to see the writing on the wall and thus paved the way for disaster.
__________________________________________________________________
Russia and China’s role in the Iran war: How the conflict is thwarting Beijing’s plans
[This article posted on 6/20/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.telepolis.de/features/Russland-und-Chinas-Rolle-im-Iran-Krieg-Wie-der-Konflikt-Beijings-Plaene-durchkreuzt-10454172.html.%5D
China and Russia support Iran – but to what extent?
Israel attacks Iran. How will Beijing and Moscow respond to the new situation? What is being done, learned, and thought behind the scenes. An assessment.
For the Western world, the situation is clear: the “state-sponsored anti-Semitism” known as Iran must not be allowed to possess a nuclear bomb under any circumstances, regardless of whether it actually planned to do so or is capable of doing so.
But resistance is stirring in Moscow and Beijing. The rifts with the Global North have become too deep, the scars of centuries of exploitation too fresh, and the lessons learned from the “regime changes” in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq too recent.
While the Kremlin is locked in a bitter dispute with the EU and NATO over Ukraine, the Chinese leadership has understood the signals sent by the trade dispute and saber rattling in the South China Sea. The stakes are high: Will the US-Israeli fuse on the Iranian powder keg be lit, triggering World War III?
Chinese oil colonialism?
Iran is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). From China’s perspective, Iran is primarily a transit corridor for energy resources and other goods. It paves the way from Central Asia to Europe and Turkey.
China in particular plans to invest billions more in Iran in the coming years. Investments had increased almost tenfold from $200 million in 2022 to $2 billion in 2024. However, it should not be forgotten that Beijing and Tehran had agreed on a volume of $400 billion – according to Iranian sources, only a fraction of this sum has been invested so far.
For China’s “string of pearls” strategy, Iran is only one link in a long chain of important partners, albeit an important one. Iran primarily supplies China with cheap crude oil. Nearly 90 percent of its daily production ends up in the “red giant empire.”
The nature of the Chinese-Iranian energy contract has often been discussed. It has been described as “colonial” because China can exert pressure on Iran, which is reeling from sanctions. In addition, China pays for the goods in renminbi, which ultimately leaves only reinvestment in China.
However, the fact is that the partnership extends far beyond energy exports.
Joint military maneuvers, Iranian imports of consumer goods, and technological, academic, and diplomatic agreements paint a complete picture.
As The Telegraph reports, there have been several unknown flight movements from China to Iran in recent days. On Friday, a cargo plane took off for the country and later disappeared from radar. Possible weapons deliveries to provide support? Iran may also be receiving support from Chinese satellite reconnaissance.
Common enemy
For both Russia and China, a pro-Western regime change would be a “black box,” leaving it unclear at first whether their respective interests could be safeguarded. Beijing and Moscow are unlikely to have much sympathy for the theocratic orientation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Although both countries’ foreign policy is guided by professional pragmatism, this should not be confused with blindness to ideological and domestic political upheavals. Moscow, in particular, has learned its lesson from the loss of Libya.
Moscow has found a military cooperation partner in the Islamic Republic. Russia is repeatedly attacking Ukraine with Shahed drones produced in Iran. Russia in Eastern Europe and Iran in Western Asia were and remain the two central geopolitical opponents of NATO hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.
It should not be forgotten that both countries fought on the same side of the barricades for years on the side of the Assad government. Both are united by the fact that their influence in Damascus has disappeared and their goods can no longer be sold in Syria.
Ultimately, the decisive factor is that Iran is integrated into the Chinese-Russian alliance constellations: the BRICS+, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). These are in turn linked by bilateral agreements.
Diplomacy instead of military action
Chinese President Xi and his Russian counterpart Putin jointly declared that decisive de-escalation was needed instead of further military confrontation. Both put their finger on the sore spot and called on the “main power” in the background – meaning the US – to “cool down” the conflict.
In doing so, they clearly rejected US interference and signaled that they would closely monitor Washington’s next steps. In a phone call on Thursday, they also strongly condemned Israel’s aggression, which violates UN law and international regulations. This is according to a statement by Kremlin adviser and former Russian ambassador to Washington, Yuri Ushakov, highlighted.
In a statement by the Chinese president, both sides were called upon to make peace, but Israel in particular was called upon to agree to a ceasefire in order to prevent the conflict from escalating into a major war.
It is clear that both Beijing and Moscow are committed to a de-escalation, to be achieved through Russian mediation. Their actions appear to have been coordinated at the highest level, revealing an attempt to establish a counterweight to the aggressive behavior of the West.
While German Chancellor Merz wants to let the Israelis do the dirty work, Russia and China are working on a diplomatic counter-narrative. They are positioning themselves as alternative powers, comparable to Saudi Arabia’s role in the Ukraine talks, and are thus creating a kind of counterweight to the West.
Contradictions and inconsistencies
At present, it remains to be seen whether Russian-Chinese influence will be sufficient to dissuade Israel and the US from their apparent plans for regime change in Iran. However, at least a military rescue of the Khamenei regime is not up for discussion: Russia is tied up in Ukraine, and China would have to take a high risk against the US and break with its tradition of non-interference.
Russia’s influence on Israel is likely to be limited. After October 7, relations cooled noticeably: Less than two weeks later, Russia received a Hamas delegation, struck a pro-Palestinian tone, and exerted pressure on the Israeli government with resolutions in the UN Security Council.
China’s influence is likely to be greater, as Beijing is a serious and, to date, reliable trading partner. In 2023, the two countries traded goods worth US$22 billion.
In addition, Beijing has repeatedly offered itself as a political mediator, with a tendency to denounce Israeli war crimes in particular. Chinese negotiation offers generally lack the references to Hamas “terrorism” that are obligatory in the West. Moreover, the importance of Iran as a trading partner far exceeds that of Israel.
The axis stands (for now)
It is becoming apparent that Russia and China want to throw their diplomatic and economic weight behind a peaceful resolution of the conflict. It is interesting to note that all statements fail to include a clear commitment to the life and continued existence of the theocracy and of Khamenei himself.
Is this a first indication that post-Islamist solutions are being worked on behind the scenes? What is certain is that the Iran-Israel conflict must be seen in the broader context of the Western-multipolar confrontation. If the peace offer succeeds, it would be a victory for Beijing and Moscow.
Unlike their Arab neighbors, who limit themselves to purely rhetorical rebukes of Iran, China and Russia are willing and able to take action rather than stand idly by and watch the geopolitical upheaval in the Middle East and the “Libyanization”—i.e., the division and fragmentation of Iran along ethno-religious lines. This is precisely what the Jerusalem Post called for in a recent editorial addressed to Donald Trump.
Even though Russia and Iran have only recently agreed on strategic cooperation for the next 20 years, this explicitly does not provide for military assistance.
The two countries strongly condemn Israel’s war of aggression, which violates international law, and are trying to contribute to a solution through diplomatic channels – but the ball is primarily in Washington and Tel Aviv’s court._____________________________________________________
Site Title 