“Legal, illegal – who cares?” This line from the German punk band Slime has unexpectedly regained relevance after Israel’s recent strike on Iran and the subsequent intervention by the United States. According to Der Spiegel, these actions most likely violated international law — yet few in the West seem to care. Not even the German chancellor.
Friedrich Merz, head of the German government, went even further: he publicly declared that “Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us,” and offered full support to the actions of both countries. “There is nothing to criticize,” he said of the strike. “Israel is doing something that is in our interest as well.”
So does the new standard mean that if it’s in the West’s interest, the law can simply be ignored?
A Dangerous Illusion: Undermining International Law Hurts Democracies Themselves
If one accepts the logic that international law is irrelevant when security is at stake, this creates a dangerous precedent. Countries like Germany, which benefit the most from a rules-based international system, have the most to lose — since they lack military or economic might to impose their will. Undermining these norms, as Der Spiegel argues, ultimately harms the very democracies that depend on them.
Before his “dirty work” comment, Merz — then still in the opposition — had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Germany, promising him safe passage despite an active arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). Now, as Chancellor, he publicly dismisses the authority of international law. This may please Israel’s far-right coalition, but it benefits neither Germany nor Israel itself. According to Der Spiegel, Israel is now breaking international law so blatantly that it risks becoming a pariah state, increasingly isolated on the global stage.
“We Don’t Care About Legalities” — But At What Cost?
Supporters of the attack claim: when it comes to Israel’s survival, laws become irrelevant. The assumption is that Iran was on the verge of building a nuclear bomb, and the strike was a justified act of preemptive self-defense. But as Der Spiegel points out, this argument is deeply flawed on several levels:
- Iran was not on the brink of a nuclear bomb. Even Netanyahu admitted that the country was still months, if not a year, away. There’s no clear evidence that Tehran had made the final political decision to actually build a bomb.
- The assumption that a nuclear-armed Iran would immediately launch a first strike against Israel defies decades of nuclear deterrence logic. Such an act would be suicidal — even for the Iranian regime.
- History shows that determined states cannot be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons by force. North Korea, India, Pakistan — all succeeded despite pressure from existing nuclear powers. Even if the U.S. really did destroy the underground Fordow facility (which is doubtful), it would not eliminate the regime’s nuclear ambitions. In fact, the strike may have made them stronger.
Where Does This War Lead?
Can Israel and its allies really trust a humiliated but undefeated Iranian regime to negotiate in good faith? Or will they now push for full regime change — as Netanyahu and Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz increasingly suggest?
Der Spiegel warns: there’s no guarantee that a post-revolution Iran would be less interested in nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, while Germany and others celebrate this show of force, Iran may be quietly relocating the core of its nuclear program — and continuing development, now with greater resolve and political justification.
Playing into the Hands of Dictators
Politicians who justify these strikes are, knowingly or not, playing into the hands of those who want to dismantle the power of international law altogether. Vladimir Putin, Ali Khamenei, Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu — all, in Der Spiegel’s view, want to break free from legal constraints: some by launching wars without parliamentary approval, others by ignoring courts or ripping up treaties.
This is not just a moral concern. It is a strategic one. If international law becomes optional, if wars can begin without UN authorization and court rulings are treated as irrelevant — then the global order descends into chaos. Germany, the EU, and the democratic world will find themselves defenseless against brute force.
Israel, International Law, and the Double Standards
One of Der Spiegel’s central conclusions: Israel itself would benefit from adhering to international law. The decades-long escalation with the Palestinians is partly rooted in Israel’s illegal occupation of territories since 1967. The country has every right to defend itself — and no one disputes its response to the October 7 Hamas attacks. But the law requires proportionality, which, as the article notes, has long since been lost.
Not Law When It’s Convenient – A System Worth Defending
Der Spiegel concludes by emphasizing that international law isn’t meant to be applied only when politically or morally convenient. It exists to limit the power of the strong and protect the weak. It enables the global community to call things what they are: aggression, war crimes, violations. It is a structure worth defending — especially when it’s inconvenient to do so.
If Germany, the U.S., China, or Israel truly want to maintain global security and stability, they must not ignore the law — they must reinforce it. That’s not weakness; that’s strategic foresight.
This article was prepared based on materials published by Der Spiegel . The author does not claim authorship of the original text but presents their interpretation of the content for informational purposes.
The original article can be found at the following link: Der Spiegel .
All rights to the original text belong to Der Spiegel .
