Germany's foreign minister spoke on Iran. On November 4, Germany's Foreign Minister Walther stated that the root of this conflict lies in an Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and an Iran supporting militia groups in several neighboring countries that do not respect those nations’ sovereignty. Iran’s actions, he said, are neither benign nor friendly. They have given other states every reason to respond—unfortunately, including through military means, in self-defense.
Evidently, the German minister’s argument rests on two points: first, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons; second, its support for militias within neighboring states. Therefore, according to this logic, other states have justification—even militarily—for confronting Iran. But does this reasoning hold up? Clearly, it does not. In fact, Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force or threat of force against any state.
The only legally recognized grounds for military action are either (1) an actual armed attack has occurred, or (2) authorization from the UN Security Council. Yet, examining the U.S.-Israel strikes against Iran: at the time, negotiations were ongoing between the United States and Iran. The U.S. and Israel launched a sudden, surprise attack—without prior armed aggression by Iran. How can such actions be considered self-defense? Even if evidence exists suggesting Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, no state may unilaterally resort to military force unless an armed attack has already taken place.
Proper procedure requires verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency, followed by diplomatic engagement. If necessary, sanctions should be imposed through the Security Council—not unilateral military action by one country. Put simply, Walther’s argument amounts to rebranding geopolitical concerns as legal justification for preemption. The mere perception of threat, or disapproval of a rival’s proxy forces, cannot serve as grounds for launching a preemptive strike. Such conduct effectively renders international law obsolete and reflects a mindset driven by bloc alignment rather than legal principle.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1880916779851788/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author.