The crimes of the Iranian regime – most recently the murder of at least 30,000 people during the protests in early January – are indelible. Everyone in the diaspora is aware of this, knows the details of the crimes and the families affected. Their hope that, after so much suffering, something will finally change cannot be brushed aside by geostrategic considerations. Will the expectations of a peaceful, democratic future for the country materialise on the basis of war? Not likely. A rude awakening is on its way. But are these arguments for not wanting to get rid of a regime intent on existing for all eternity at any cost? You cannot offset the crimes of the Israeli government against those of the Iranian regime. That is the first thing.
The second is a German Chancellor who, once the Israeli and US attacks on Iran started, said that now was not the time for lectures on international law. Germany, the UK and France are, however, criticising the Iranian counter-attacks. The term “double standard” no longer does justice to the selective suspension of international law. International norms do not apply to “partners and allies” (Merz); this standard is reserved for enemies. But you cannot invoke international law when it comes to Greenland, Taiwan and Ukraine, and then set it aside when it comes to Iran, Venezuela and other regimes – international law either applies to everyone, or to no one. Whether you like it or not.
What is new, in contrast to past military interventions, is how brazenly international law is being broken and how openly self-interests are being pursued. Whilst in the war against Iraq in 2003 the US still relied on a “coalition of the willing” designed to compensate for the lack of legitimacy from the UN Security Council, today Israel and the US are acting alone. Because they can. The imperial law of the strongest prevails.
In the wake of the genocide in Gaza, the end of the Assad regime and a drastically weakened Hezbollah in Lebanon, the moment seems to have arrived for the US and Israel to completely reshape the Middle East in line with their interests: purported security for some at the cost of the lives of others. Dirk Moses coined the term ‘permanent security’, a state’s pursuit of immunity from threats, including future ones. This pursuit allows zero compromise and entails the destruction, expulsion or control of those deemed a threat to the state’s security.
Even right before the attacks on Iran, there were reports of a possible breakthrough in the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme, whilst behind the scenes the US and Israel had already planned the attacks on the country. What meaning can diplomacy have in the future if it is entirely non-binding?
The fact that there is no longer any international institution to speak of capable of stemming the law of the jungle is something Germany shares the blame for. Even if Friedrich Merz sells his stance as a pragmatic response to an increasingly tricky world, the Federal Republic could play a different role than simply submitting to power: were the institutionalisation of international law, the establishment of the prohibition of the use of force between states, and the legal prosecution of war crimes and war criminals not lessons learned from the Second World War, which Germany started?
The dog-eat-dog world operates without international law, a permanent state of war to guarantee supposed security, to assert self-interests and to secure resources. But the law of the strongest is not an option for a world that has enough crises to contend with, crises that can only be resolved together.
If you speak about peace, though, you have to actually do something to achieve it. If Europe intends to uphold peace and international law, it needs to take a new look at its own use of force and complicity, and it needs its own vision for the new world order. Submitting to the downward spiral, rearming, excluding, and isolating ourselves only reinforces it, plays into the hands of the far right, and leads us all into oblivion.
Call for donations
In Iran, medico supports an activist network assisting those injured during the crackdown on protests in the wake of the murder of Jina Mahsa Amini, as well as relatives of those imprisoned. The group covers treatment costs as well as the costs of prosthetics and travel to hospitals. In some cases, those imprisoned or murdered were also the main providers for their families, who then had to fend for themselves, falling into financial hardship. The network supports them by paying for the costs of medical treatment and assisting with living expenses. The US-Israeli attacks have meant that this work has had to be suspended for the time being.
In Lebanon, medico has been working with the health organisation Amel Association for decades. Amel operates health centres throughout the country, as well as six mobile clinics. Its staff offer basic healthcare for everyone; in the Bekaa Valley, they also provide care to Syrian refugees. Following the recent escalation, Amel is providing medical care and food to displaced people from the south of the country at schools and other emergency shelters. With their mobile clinics, they also reach remote shelters. Our long-standing Palestinian partner organisation Nashet is currently organising aid for the population fleeing from the south of the country.
In Israel, medico’s partners visit shelters in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa multiple times a day. They adapt their work to the circumstances. In Gaza and the West Bank, access routes have been restricted since the start of the war, checkpoints and border crossings are closed, and Palestinians are unable to leave their towns and cities. Aid and other goods are not being allowed into Gaza, and there are already difficulties with food supplies again. medico’s partners know this plight all too well and continue to provide help.
We are also currently in daily contact with our partners in Syria, Iraq and the Kurdish regions. We share our assessments of the situation and concerns about what the future may have in store.
You can support our partners’ work on the ground by making a donation.