From moral rhetoric to political hypocrisy: Germany’s stance on Iran attack

It is difficult to find an act of aggression that so openly violates international law as the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran in June of this year—an assessment on which virtually all reputable experts in international law agree.

Nevertheless, the German government and significant segments of the country’s leading media outlets have openly supported this war.

According to WSWS, the same voices that condemn the war in Ukraine daily as a violation of international law have no trouble ignoring the flagrant breaches of international law by Israel and the United States. Instead, they lean on the legal arguments once advanced by Nazi jurist Carl Schmitt to claim that a war can be “legitimate” even when it violates legitimacy itself.

This open contempt for international law—now couched in deference to Donald Trump’s administration—can only be understood against the backdrop of Germany’s rearmament and Berlin’s ambition to become what it calls “the strongest military power in Europe.” Germany’s ruling elite is preparing for future wars of aggression and is discarding international law in the process.

For twelve days, Iran was subjected to sudden attacks with bombs and missiles—first by the nuclear-armed, non-NPT signatory of Israel, and then by the United States.

These attacks came unexpectedly, right after Iran and the United States had agreed to enter a new round of negotiations. Hundreds of people—including scientists and ordinary civilians—were massacred, and residential buildings and civilian infrastructure were destroyed.

The U.S. then bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities with the most powerful non-nuclear bombs ever used in war. The U.S. president did not even attempt to claim “self-defense.”

Since then, numerous legal experts have confirmed that this was a clear violation of international law. Yet from the outset, the German government explicitly supported the aggression by the U.S. and Israel.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul condemned Iran’s response to the aggression “in the strongest possible terms,” while, regarding Israel’s blatant assault, he stated: “They have told us that, from their perspective, it is necessary, and we must accept it as it is.”

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz praised Israel for doing “the dirty work for all of us” by attacking Iran. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius added: “We must not forget that Israel’s security is constantly under threat. Israel has the right to defend itself, and the Americans have assumed responsibility for the region.”

German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt became the first foreign state official to visit the occupied territories after Israel’s attack on Iran. There he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer.

Netanyahu—photographed shaking Dobrindt’s hand—is under an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes. Under German law, Dobrindt’s political office would have been obligated to arrest him.

Dobrindt openly endorsed Israel’s aggression as “a significant contribution to the security of Israel and the security of Europe.”

Germany’s choice of which aggressions to support has nothing to do with whether a war is legal under international law—it depends solely on who commits it and how it affects Germany’s economic interests.

An act of aggression in violation of international law

German officials have made no serious attempt to legally justify Israel’s claim of “self-defense” under international law.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use or threat of force in international relations. The only exceptions are collective security measures authorized by the UN Security Council (e.g., Chapter VII actions) or the right to self-defense (Article 51).

The definition of aggression was codified in UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), describing it as the use of armed force contrary to the Charter.

Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines the “crime of aggression” as planning, preparing, initiating, or executing an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity, and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter.

Germany ratified the Rome Statute and in 2017 incorporated the “crime of aggression” into its own criminal code, making life imprisonment the maximum penalty.

No one has claimed that the attack on Iran was authorized as a collective security measure by the UN Security Council; there was not even a resolution remotely suggesting this.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report of June 12, 2025—often cited by Israel, the U.S., and their supporters—does not claim that Iran possesses or is building a nuclear bomb. On the contrary, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi told Al Jazeera on June 19: “We have seen no element that would allow us, as inspectors, to confirm that nuclear weapons are being manufactured anywhere in Iran.”

Iran has been a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1968 and is entitled under it to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, including uranium enrichment. Even if Iran were in violation, this would not justify a “right of self-defense” for Israel, a country with hundreds of nuclear weapons, outside the NPT, and which has never allowed inspections of its nuclear facilities.

In contrast, Israel has repeatedly attacked other states to destroy their nuclear facilities. For example, in 1981, it used the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War to bomb Iraq’s Osirak reactor—then under NPT safeguards. The UN Security Council unanimously condemned the attack and called on Israel to place its own facilities under IAEA oversight.

Twenty years ago, Germany’s Federal Administrative Court ruled in relation to the U.S. war against Iraq that under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, any threat or use of force against another state constitutes aggression and a breach of international law, with only two exceptions: a formal UN Security Council decision or genuine self-defense.

A January 2, 2003 report by the Bundestag’s Research Service likewise concluded that the attack on Iraq was illegal under international law.

Mohamed ElBaradei, shortly after Israel’s attack on Iran, directly responded to the German foreign minister via social media: “Has anyone told you that targeted attacks on nuclear facilities are prohibited under Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions—which Germany has ratified—and that the use of force in international relations is generally prohibited under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter? … Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the basic principles of international law.”

Almost all leading international law scholars in Germany have stated that the U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran was, by any definition, a war of aggression and a violation of international law. Even in mainstream Western media, some who support the war concede this fact.

For example, Carlo Masala, professor of International Politics at the Bundeswehr University in Munich, despite his pro-Israel arguments, admitted: “As far as proportionality in international law is concerned, there is broad agreement that Israel’s attack constitutes a violation of international law.” He further emphasized that there was no specific threat or imminent preparation by Iran to launch a military attack against Israel.

Israel, despite all its propaganda, has consistently avoided bringing its claims against Iran to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—a prudent choice given the likely outcome, as demonstrated by the U.S.’s own failed case there.

Jochen Bittner, veteran lawyer and journalist at Die Zeit, called for Germany to directly enter the war on Israel’s side, writing on X: “The best time to offer every conceivable form of assistance to Israel in defending against Iran’s retaliatory strikes was several hours ago.”

In another post, Bittner openly praised Israel’s genocide in Gaza, assassinations in Lebanon, and war of aggression against Iran as “strategic sophistication.”

Hubert Wetzel, EU correspondent for Süddeutsche Zeitung, argued similarly on June 17.

Thomas Avenarius, Middle East correspondent for the same paper, accused Trump of not going far enough when joining Israel’s war of aggression against Iran.

Reinhard Müller, editor at Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, defended Israel’s attack on Iran as an act of self-defense.

Clemens Wergin, senior foreign correspondent for Die Welt (Springer), dismissed any legal scrutiny of Israel’s aggression as irrelevant.

Herfried Münkler, retired professor at Humboldt University in Berlin, likewise praised Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its terror campaign in Lebanon while justifying its attack on Iran.

A new depth of contempt for the rule of law

The blatant contempt for the rule of law and international law has reached a new level. Even during past imperialist wars, Western powers tried to maintain the appearance of respecting international law, pretending that wars were conducted not by a handful of great powers but by an “international community”—even though it was plainly a lie.

This is not a relic of the distant past; the same methods are now being applied with a new intensity to trample on the rule of law and international norms.

From this perspective, justifying the attack on Iran with unfounded allegations is nothing new—it has happened many times before. Germany continues to abide by the rule of “might makes right,” which is why it cannot make any international-law-based argument against U.S. and Israeli aggression toward Iran.

Instead, it bows before those it perceives as stronger powers, in the vague hope of being heard—just as the German federal government is currently displaying its sycophancy toward Trump and Netanyahu.

Germany’s aspiration to become Europe’s leading military power is a serious concern. A state that consistently relies on others to carry out its “dirty work” will never respect the law.