Journalist Gilda Sahebi describes 'mixed feelings' in Iran – DW – 06/17/2025
Nicole Frölich
06/17/2025
June 17, 2025
People in Iran are mostly scared, fearing for their lives, German-Iranian journalist Gilda Sahebi says. They may be hoping that this may be the end of the regime, but, she says, the weakened regime is as repressive as ever.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
German outcry over Merz's Remark on Israel's 'Dirty Work' – DW – 06/18/2025
06/18/2025 June 18, 2025 German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Tuesday praised Israel for being "courageous enough" to attack Iran's nuclear site, calling it the "dirty work" done for the West. His remarks have sparked criticism in Germany, where many had hoped for a more critical stance from Berlin in the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict.
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
Debate rages over legality of Israel's attack on Iran – DW – 06/18/2025
Israel says it struck Iran in self-defense, fearing a nuclear threat. But international law covering self-defense by states is very strict — fueling heated debate about the legality of Israel's initial attack. When it comes to discussing whether Israel's initial attack on Iran was justified or not, the arguments on both sides are strident and emotional. Israel broke international law by attacking another country, one side says. It's a rogue state, bombing across borders with impunity, they claim. But Israel has been threatened by Iran for years and Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb, the other side argues. That poses an existential threat, they insist. But which side does international law — unswayed by emotion — come down on? Iranian leaders have been threatening Israel for years but in legal terms, the question must be whether they were making a nuclear bomb they would fire at Tel Aviv, experts say Image: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/AFP via Getty Images How do analysts view legality of Israeli strikes? Senior Israeli politicians described their country's attack on Iran on June 13 as a "preemptive, precise" attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, arguing it was self-defense because they feared a future nuclear attack by Iran. Under international law, there are very specific rules about self-defense, for example Articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter, and it's more likely this was what's known as a "preventive" attack. "My impression is that the majority of legal analysts see [Israel's attack] as a case of 'prohibited self-defense'," Matthias Goldmann, a law professor and international law expert at EBS University Wiesbaden, told DW. "Because the requirements for self-defense are rather strict. They require an imminent attack that cannot be fended off in any other way. If you apply that requirement, you come to the conclusion that there was no attack imminent from Iran." The timing alone makes that clear, Goldmann and others argue. On June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, issued a statement saying that Iran was not fully cooperating with it. But Israel has not presented any evidence as to why they believed a nuclear threat from Iran was so close and US intelligence suggests Iran was possibly three years away from a bomb. There have been years of threatening rhetoric between Iran and Israel but it's deemed highly unlikely that Iran would fire a nuclear weapon at Israel later this month. "Look back at the Cold War," Goldmann suggested. "Both sides had nuclear weapons and relied on the principle of mutually assured destruction — where you don't use your nuclear weapon because you know the counterstrike would be fatal. That's why the mere fact of possessing nuclear weapons in itself cannot be considered an imminent attack." Israel itself already has an unspecified number of nuclear weapons but never signed the UN's Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and does not allow international inspections. In defense of Israel In a text for the website Just Security, Israeli law professors Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany agree an attack in self-defense would have been illegal. But, they say, the attack on Iran should actually be seen as part of the larger conflict. "That changes the legal arguments because the attack would have happened in a differently defined context," they say. In another opinion published this week on the US military academy West Point's website, Articles of War , Michael Schmitt, an American professor of public law, argues that the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat means the concept of self-defense could be interpreted more liberally. But Schmitt admits this is a "tough case" because there were still other options than force. Another of the preconditions to attacking in self-defense is that a country must have exhausted all other options — and Schmitt notes nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran were ongoing at the time of the attack. There's another reason why most legal experts believe Israel's attack was illegal, says Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the UK's University of Reading. Ultimately the law on this is built to be restrictive, he says. "It's about minimizing the need to resort to force. It's not about creating loopholes that any state that likes to bomb others can exploit," he told DW. Laws of combat "All is not fair in war, once the fighting starts," says Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Boston's Tufts University. "There is a carefully calibrated legal framework which applies equally to both sides." Parties cannot target civilians or civilian objects, Dannenbaum told DW. "Objects only become military objectives when, by their nature, purpose, location, or use, they make an effective contribution to military action." The Israeli Ministry of Defense and the headquarters of the Israeli Defense forces is in central Tel Aviv and surrounding civilian buildings were damaged in recent Iranian attacks Image: Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images For example, this relates to Israeli targeting of Iranian nuclear scientists in their homes: Many lawyers explained that simply working on a weapons program doesn't make you a combatant. Meanwhile, Iran's bombing has also killed civilians in Tel Aviv. "Even when targeting military objectives, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm," Dannenbaum explains, "and must not attack if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage." It's hard to say if cases like this will ever be argued in court though. Goldmann, Dannenbaum and Milanovic say there's potential for related cases to eventually be heard at the International Court of Justice or perhaps at the European Court of Human Rights. The International Court of Justice was established after World War II to regulate disputes between states Image: LEX VAN LIESHOUT/ANP/AFP via Getty Images "But most of these types of issues on use of force don't end up in court," Milanovic said. "They get resolved in other ways. They're too political, or too large." Usually international diplomacy ends up resolving the issue, he noted. Degrading international law For many legal experts, one of the most worrying aspects is what appears to be implicit state support for Israel's most-likely-illegal definition of self-defense. For example, while not referring specifically to the June 13 attack on Iran, statements by Germany's government have all contained some form of the phrase, "Israel has the right to defend itself." "Of course, Israel does have a right to defend itself — but that right is limited by international law," Milanovic argues. The rules on self-defense are strict for a reason, he and Goldmann explain. If you start expanding their definition — for instance, saying you have the right to attack another state because they attacked you several years ago, or might attack you a few years from now — the rules are eroded, along with the whole system of international law. Germany's Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Germany doesn't have all the facts so can't say with any certainty whether the Israeli attack was legal or not Image: Hannes P Albert/dpa/picture alliance In the past, the international community has spoken out, for example, amid the controversy surrounding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on claims that it possessed "weapons of mass destruction," Goldmann noted. "The legal argument Russia made [for invading Ukraine] is also actually very similar to this Israeli argument," Milanovic pointed out. "If you read [Vladimir] Putin's speech on the eve of the 2022 invasion, it basically said that at some point in the future Ukraine and NATO are going to attack us and that's why we're doing this. But that's really not about self-defense," he concludes. "That's about, say, you don't like somebody, you think they're a threat and therefore you think you have the right to go to war with them. Which is simply not what international law says." Edited by: Jess Smee
DW
7 hours ago
- DW
Where does Donald Trump stand on the Israel-Iran conflict? – DW – 06/17/2025
Donald Trump calls himself a "peacemaker." But he has also called Iran's supreme leader an "easy target." DW looks at the US president's stance and his relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel's assault on Iran was discussed with Washington before it was launched. "There were no surprises here," Fox News anchor Brett Bair said after an interview with US President Donald Trump last Friday. The US government has made clear that it was not actively involved in the attack, though questions arose as to whether this would remain the case when the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz was rerouted from the South China Sea to the Middle East. And, on Tuesday, Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social that the United States knew the exact location of Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. "He is an easy target, but is safe there," Trump wrote. "We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now." On the campaign trail ahead of the 2024 US presidential election, Trump never tired of repeating that he had no desire to allow the United States to get caught up in global military conflicts. In his January 2025 inaugural address, Trump called himself a "peacemaker," pledging to use the might of the US to "stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity" to the world. Speaking in Saudi Arabia in May, he announced the dawn of a new era of peace in the Middle East. The front page of an Iranian newspaper reporting on recent nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran Image: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images What's Trump's stance on Iran? Not much remains of this peaceful attitude in the wake of Israel's full-on assault on Iran. On Monday night, Trump wrote on Truth Social that "everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran." In a previous post, he wrote that he had given Tehran's leaders "chance after chance" to sign a new nuclear deal, warning that if they failed to sign one, Iran would face an attack worse than anything they could imagine. Trump wrote that hardliners who had come out against an agreement "are all dead now," adding, "it will only get worse!" Delegations from both nations have met several times since April, with the aim of negotiating a replacement treaty for the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) deal that Trump withdrew the US from in 2018. Trump claims his aim has always been to ensure that Iran can never build a nuclear weapon — which was also the aim of the JCPOA. Beyond military and civilian targets, Israel's attacks also hit Iranian nuclear sites. An attack on Iran's state broadcaster: Tehran appears incapable of protecting critical infrastructure from Israeli assault Image: IRIB Is Israel leading the US into war? So where does Donald Trump actually stand in this conflict between the hardline governments of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Iran? British-Israeli political scientist Daniel Levy, president of the non-profit research institute US/Middle East Project, suggests Israel may have convinced the US that a military attack against Iran could help advance nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran. Levy also told DW it was no coincidence that Israel had chosen this moment to attack. "I think one of the primary motivating factors for Netanyahu was to act now because were there a break-through in the talks, he would probably feel sufficiently constrained by the Americans not to act." In any case, Trump decided not to red light Netanyahu's attack on Iran, wrote Willian F. Wechsler, in a blog post for the US think tank Atlantic Council, where he is director of the Middle East program. There was no specific demand that Israel refrain from attacking, therefore, "we should assume that Israeli leaders would have interpreted the absence of an American red light as a de facto green light," wrote Wechsler. Trump stuck in the middle In May, Trump made headlines by firing his national security advisor, Michael Waltz, who had created headaches for the administration by erroneously adding a well-known journalist to a chat group discussing secret US military plans on the messenger service Signal. But research by the Washington Post newspaper found that something else had in fact led to Waltz's firing: Trump's advisor is said to have had intense discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu about possible military options for dealing with Iran — and that, prior to Netanyahu's visit to the White House. The paper wrote that Waltz, "wanted to take US policy in a direction Trump wasn't comfortable with…" Was National Security Advisor Michael Waltz fired for pushing policies Trump wasn't comfortable with? Image: Ben Curtis/AP Photo/picture alliance So where does the US commander-in-chief stand exactly? Does he oppose military action against Iran, or does he see it as grounds for celebration? In Levy's view, the US president is tacking back and forth because his own MAGA (Make America Great Again) base is highly divided on the issue of military deployments in the Middle East. There's "a fissure in MAGA-world," says Levy. On one side, there are those who are all in on Trump's "America first" approach that puts US interests above all else. The last thing this group wants is for the US to become involved in a distant conflict that they feel does not directly affect them. On the other side are Trump's many conservative Jewish-American and evangelical Christian supporters, who believe the US must support Israel — even militarily if necessary — no matter what. Levy says the situation is risky. "There's also a question here of whether the rest of the world will see an America that can be led by the nose into a military confrontation by an ally who acts out of turn," says the political scientist. "That's not a good message to send." Israel-Iran conflict: 'Deciding factor is likely Washington' To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video This article was originally published in German and was translated by Jon Shelton. Edited by: Jess Smee
