By Peter Trankner
D. Trump’s Middle East policy is certainly debatable. But those who condemn the intervention in Iran in the name of “international law” are more important to them than human lives.
Admittedly, Trump’s war is downright risky. Anyone who has dealt with military history knows that this is exactly how most wars start, which eventually get out of control. But that doesn’t mean there weren’t good reasons for this war.
But what does “international law” actually say?
The UN Charter’s ban on violence requires justification for all military action against other states. But massive human rights violations (like in Iran) can, according to a widely accepted view, justify unilateral intervention to protect persecuted groups -- as they did years ago, for example, in Kosovo. The Mullah regime’s terror and killings of tens of thousands of victims have long since crossed the threshold that such humanitarian intervention should justify. The people of Iran hope that this is precisely where they will be saved from the yoke of the Mullah regime. And the US government has warned the Iranian leadership long enough against continued brutality.
Furthermore, the Mullah leadership in Iran has been working for about a quarter of a century to gain the ability to build nuclear weapons. In the weeks leading up to the Israeli and American attacks in June last year, the Islamic Republic had come dangerously close to this capability. It had the know-how, she had enough highly enriched uranium and she had the infrastructure to produce nuclear weapons on an industrial scale.
From this point on, a regime that has such capabilities is effectively invincible. This is shown by the example of North Korea, where for decades a regime has held on to power almost without any economic basis and using indescribable human rights crimes, simply because it can produce nuclear weapons.
And then imagine what it would mean if we were in the year 2030 and Iran were a nuclear power that had closed the Strait of Hormuz. And when we hear that the attack of the joint US and Israeli forces is “violation of international law”, then some people clearly didn’t think it through the end. Because we know that Iran has carried out attacks around the world, has people on its conscience, and brutally cracking down on its own people. After all, Iran has behaved in violation of “international law” very long itself. Anyone who listens to the Mullahs also knows what they really want: to wipe out the state of Israel from the map. All they need is an atomic bomb.
Death and terror are just part of the essence of this demonic power, and it is the powerful “Revolutionary Guards” who have pushed the country’s nuclear program to the threshold of nuclear weapons capability. They are the ones who are promoting terrorists such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis across the Middle East. And it is the Revolutionary Guards who also crush any protests with murderous force, because they are the ones who benefit most from the current situation, because they openly and control at least a third (33 percent) of Iran’s economy.
On Sunday, March 8, 2026. the world celebrated “International Women’s Day” -- something women in Iran can only dream of.
While many countries mark this day with speeches, flowers and celebrations, women in Iran still struggle for the most basic rights: freedom of expression, freedom of dress and equality under the law. Many who speak out are arrested, imprisoned, flogged, or worse.
And the claim that Iran holds “free elections according to democratic principles” is misleading. The ruling system of the Mullahs cannot be voted out! In Iran, candidates must first be approved by the “unelected Guardian Council,” which routinely disqualifies anyone considered disloyal to the Islamic Republic. As a result, only candidates vetted by the regime can run, limiting voters’ choices.
More importantly, the Supreme Leader -- the most powerful figure in the country -- cannot be elected or removed by the people, yet he controls the military, judiciary and key state institutions. In clear words: elections exists, but the system itself is immune to democratic change!!
An “international law” order can only hope for acceptance if it takes into account legitimate security needs of states, basic human rights and the freedom of oppressed peoples, especially when the United Nations fails as so often. This framework should guide us with the necessary differentiation even in the case of a critical assessment under “international law.”
And this is the inconvenient truth about the “international Law,” something that, quite obviously, many people cannot or refuse to understand.