Official Western reactions to Israel’s illegal attack on Iran and the subsequent  developments in the conflict are characterized by such shameless hypocrisy and  distortions of reality that even George Orwell would be astounded. On June 13, 2025,  Israel launched a series of illegal attacks on Iran, which, according to UN experts,  “represent a flagrant violation of fundamental principles of international law, a blatant  act of aggression and a violation of jus cogens norms – peremptory rules of  international law from which no derogation is permitted”. Israeli leaders portrayed the  attack as a defensive effort to ensure that Iran could never develop nuclear weapons,  but even if one took that claim seriously, it would be irrelevant. As the aforementioned  UN experts stated, “Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations prohibits the threat  or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,  including through any purported claim of preventive self-defense against alleged  nuclear proliferation or terrorism”. Furthermore, as Ben Saul, Challis chair of  international law at the University of Sidney, reminds us, “under international law, a  country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another  country”, and that there “is no wider legal right of ‘anticipatory’ self-defence against a  speculative, more distant future threat”. The Israeli attacks also deliberately targeted  civilians (nuclear scientists and journalists), a truly egregious violation of international  law and basic moral principles. It could also be added that almost every act of  aggression in history has been described as “defensive” by the perpetrators, rendering  Israel’s excuse for its actions even more meaningless.  

How then have the highly principled Western leaders, those righteous upholders of a  rules-based international order, reacted to Israel’s criminality? If one were naive  enough to believe in the sincerity of their proclamations about the importance of  international law and norms in other contexts, one would assume that they would have  strongly condemned Israel’s actions. However, they did the opposite. The miserable  European leaders, led by the inglorious triumvirate of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer,  German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and French President Emmanuel Macron, strongly  expressed their support for Israel’s (i.e. the aggressor’s) right to self-defense, while also  calling for de-escalation and sternly informing Iran that it must now return to the  negotiating table. Kaja Kallas, the European Union High Representative for Foreign  Affairs and Security, and the ministers of foreign affairs of the UK, Germany, and  France, echoed essentially the same message in their statement on the conflict. In the  statement, these leaders reaffirmed “Israel’s right to protect its security and people, in  adherence with international law” (which Israel’s attack severely violated, as just 

discussed, a fact completely omitted from the statement). A statement issued by the  Group of Seven (comprised of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the  US) on the conflict also expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself. US  President Donald Trump (who, admittedly, has never even pretended to care about  international law and norms), jubilantly described the attacks as “excellent” and  promised further violence unless Iran agreed to his and Israel’s demands. As a reward  for European leaders’ demonstration of subordination to US-Israeli power, Trump went  out of his way to humiliate them by announcing that Europe was “not going to be able to  help” facilitate an end to the conflict, while also publicly berating Macron for claiming  Trump had left the Group of Seven meeting early to work on an Israel-Iran ceasefire. 

Returning to the absurdity of Western leaders’ statements on the Israel-Iran conflict, let us first contemplate their calls for de-escalation. These calls, first of all, omit the fact  that Israel has significantly escalated tensions by launching its attacks, which have also  led to a postponement of the UN conference on the two-state solution for Israel and the  Palestinians. In other words, Israel sabotaged an effort to de-escalate the Israel Palestine conflict, a fact that is conspicuously absent from Western leaders’ hand wringing about “de-escalation”. However, their calls for Iran to return to the negotiating  table are even more farcical. Iran never left the negotiations and was prepared to attend  the sixth round of talks between the US and Iran in Oman to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Israel, with the support of the “pro-peace” Trump then turned the  negotiating table into kindling by attacking Iran, and Western leaders subsequently  demanded that Iran (not Israel or the US) demonstrate its willingness to resume  peaceful dialogue. Furthermore, it was not Iran that undermined the Joint  Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement that sought to limit the Iranian  nuclear program, but rather the first Trump administration in 2018. Despite Trump’s  sabotage, Yukiya Amano, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency  (IAEA), announced in 2019 that “Iran is implementing its nuclear commitments” under  the JCPOA agreement. Iran has also voiced support for the implementation of a nuclear  weapon free zone in the Middle East, which, if supported by a vigorous inspection  regime, could significantly reduce tensions in the Middle East. The proposal, however,  is opposed by the US and Israel, demonstrating once again that it is not Iran that is the  prime obstacle to a negotiated resolution to the crisis. Naturally, none of these facts  are mentioned when Western leaders demand that Iran return to negotiations and  accuse it of destabilizing the region. 

What could truly destabilize the region, with ominous implications possibly reverberating far beyond the Middle East, is the dangerous precedent Israel and its US  backer set with the Israeli attacks, further tearing international law and norms into  shreds. As Karim Emile Bitar, a Middle East expert at Beirut’s Saint-Joseph University  and visiting professor at Sciences-Po Paris, has pointed out in connection to the recent  events, “[t]he message to the world is that if might is on your side, you can break all the 

rules, trample on international law and all the standards that have been in place since  1945, and there will be absolutely no accountability”. Additionally, according to Brian  Brivati, a visiting professor of contemporary history and human rights at Kingston  University, “[t]he combination of a powerful state acting with impunity and a  superpower disabling the mechanisms of accountability marks a global inflection  point”, and “[o]ther global powers, including Russia and China, are taking this  opportunity to move beyond the Western rules-based system”. Western leaders would  be in no position to criticize such a development, given that they themselves have no  respect for the rules-based system, expect when it can be invoked to self-righteously  denounce the crimes and misdeeds of official Western foes. 

None of this has anything to do with defending or supporting the Iranian leadership,  whom the IAEA had found to be in breach of their non-proliferation obligations shortly  before the Israeli attacks were launched. Iran had also stopped complying with the  JCPOA in early 2020 (after Trump had wrecked it and escalated tensions with Iran by  assassinating the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani). However, according to a March  Congressional testimony by Trump’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi  Gabbard, the US intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a  nuclear weapon”. Later, though, Gabbard, in an effort to placate Trump, insisted that  she fully agreed with Trump’s assessment that Iran was very close to developing  nuclear weapons. Trump’s assessment is also shared by Israeli Prime Minister  Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made similar (false) claims about Iran’s nuclear  weapons program for decades. These assessments, however, are at odds with current IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s analysis. Grossi has described Iran’s nuclear  program as “a source of legitimate concern”, while noting that an IAEA report earlier  this year found that Iran was potentially close to developing nuclear weapons.  However, Grossi also stated that “whereas until the early 2000s there used to be…a  structured and systematic effort in the direction of a nuclear device, that is not the case  now”. There is, furthermore, one country in the Middle East which has developed  nuclear weapons while not even being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation  Treaty (NPT): Israel.  

The direct US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22 and the reactions to them  also shed considerable light on the Western political elite’s conception of the  importance of international law and norms. The attacks were, of course, hopelessly  illegal. As Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National  University, pointed out, “there was no UN Security Council authorisation for either  Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and  security”, and that “there’s no evidence of any recent Iranian attacks on the US”, which  would have justified the attacks in self-defense. Trump, in his address to the American  people concerning the strikes, did not even bother to pretend they had any legal  justification. During the buildup to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, the George W. 

Bush administration felt compelled to make some kind of gestures towards legality by  appealing to UN security council resolutions that Iraq had allegedly violated. Now even the veneer of respect for international law has completely evaporated, superseded by  

proud boasting about the dominance of US-Israeli military power. The European  leaders, predictably, could be relied upon to once again show their subservience to  Washington. Merz remarked that “[t]here is no reason for us and also for me personally  to criticize what Israel started a week ago and also no reason to criticize what America  did last weekend”. Starmer also rushed to shine Trump’s shoes by expressing support  for the US strikes, while also reiterating his absurd demand that Tehran return to  negotiations (from which it never left). Surprisingly, Macron criticized the US attacks,  saying there was no “legality” in them, while also watering down his remarks by stating  that there may have been “legitimacy in neutralizing nuclear structures in Iran”. One  can imagine the reaction in the West if anybody suggested that a crime committed by  an official Western enemy was “illegal but legitimate”.  

What exactly have these US-Israeli attacks on Iran accomplished? They have further  demolished international law and norms and more deeply entrenched the principle that  brute force reigns supreme in international affairs. Even from the point of view of the US  and Israel the attacks have not been entirely successful and may have even been  counterproductive. According to a Pentagon report, the US attacks on Iranian nuclear  facilities only set Iran’s nuclear program back by a few months. Furthermore, the US Israeli attacks may have encouraged Iran to now actually develop nuclear weapons to  bolster its deterrence capabilities, which have been exposed as quite weak. As  Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, an  American foreign policy think tank, noted, “[t]he sad truth here is that by striking Iran,  the U.S. has made it much more likely that Iran will want to obtain nuclear weapons”. Iranian lawmakers have now also voted to suspend their country’s co-operation with  IAEA, which means that Iran will now “halt inspections, reporting, and oversight  activities under the NPT”. When violence and force are preferred over diplomacy, such  results are not particularly surprising.

---