Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: Israel attacks put pressure on Germany's Middle East policy (republished from DW)

15 June 2025

This article, authored by Christoph Hasselbach and Peter Hille was published by German broadcaster, Deutche Welle, on 14 June. commonspace.eu is republishing in full and without any edits.

Trapped between what it sees as a historical responsibility to Israel and international law and diplomacy, Germany is facing a tough foreign policy test after the latest Israeli attacks on Iran.

Germany's foreign policy in the Middle East has always involved a delicate balancing act — a balancing act that just got a little more difficult. Israel's attack on Iran this week is likely to put further pressure on Germany's close relationship with Israel.

Israel's security is part of Germany's so-called "Staatrason" or "reason of state." Former Chancellor Angela Merkel popularized the term when she addressed the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in 2008. Although the idea has no official legal standing, Merkel's successor, Olaf Scholz, doubled down on it in the months after the militant group Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023.

More recently though, the severe humanitarian consequences of Israel's ongoing offensive in the Gaza Strip have made it difficult for the German government to find a suitable position on the conflict there. Only a few days ago, Germany's new Chancellor Fredrich Merz said, "frankly speaking, I no longer understand what the goal of the Israeli army in the Gaza Strip is," during a television interview.

"Harming the civilian population to such an extent, as has increasingly been the case in recent days, can no longer be justified as a fight against Hamas terrorism," he told German public broadcaster WDR. Despite those statements though, there have been no consequences. For example, Germany continues to send weapons to Israel.

Germany's support to Israel

The Israel government is defending its latest strikes against Iran by saying it was acting against "an existential threat." Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz called it a "pre-emptive strike" because Iran was close to developing a nuclear bomb, something Israel wanted to prevent happening.

The German government appears to share that opinion. In a press statement issued the morning of the first Israeli strikes, Merz said Israel had "the right to defend its existence and its citizens." Merz had spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the phone and Netanyahu had informed him of the military action and its objectives .

The press statement also said that the German government has repeatedly expressed concerns about the Iranian nuclear program. Iran's "nuclear program violates the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and poses a serious threat to the entire region, especially to the State of Israel," the German government statement said.

The goal of any diplomatic intervention and de-escalation, which Germany supports, must be that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons, the statement concluded. 

That reaction from the German government was to be expected, Hans-Jakob Schindler, senior director of the Netherlands-based Counter Extremism Project, told DW. 

"Now it is the direct negotiations between the US and the Iranians that are crucial," Schindler said. "The previous negotiating format — Germany, France, the UK and the US, with the Iranians — is not a part of this any longer. In this conflict the Europeans are increasingly spectators, rather than actors.

Growing criticism of Israel

Schindler does not believe that the current military escalation will change anything around Germany's position on Israel. "We're not just any other country. We're Germany, with the history of the Holocaust," he explained. "In that sense there's absolutely no other moral or ethical option than expressing solidarity with Israel."

That does not mean that Germany has to approve of each Israeli military operation and every Israeli government decision, Schindler continued. "The new German government seems much more prepared to criticize than the previous one," he noted.  

Voices critical of the Netanyahu government had recently been growing louder in the German government, including in the governing coalition made up of conservatives from the Christian Democratic Union, or CDU, and the Christian Social Union, as well as the left-centrist Social Democrats, or SPD.

Some members of the government seem to fear being pressured by Israel. At the end of last month, Germany's Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Germany would not allow what he called "compulsory solidarity."

During his visit to Cairo, Wadephul commented on the Iranian strikes that came in retaliation for the earlier Israeli ones. "We condemn the indiscriminate Iranian attack on Israeli territory in the strongest possible terms," ​​Wadephul, a member of the CDU, said. "Iran is currently attacking Israel with hundreds of drones. There are initial reports of casualties. These developments are more than worrying." Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar had apparently informed him of the attack. 

After the Israeli attacks on Iran, SPD foreign policy specialist Rolf Mützenich told German public radio broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that Israel had the right to defend itself. However, that right should be connected to imminent danger and an existential threat. Whether those prerequisites had been present for Israel to base its attack on, would certainly be discussed at the United Nations Security Council, or UNSC.

At the same time, Mützenich also confirmed the dangers posed by the Iranian nuclear program, adding that Teheran had also acted irresponsibly and was also part of the current escalation spiral.

International law?

Whether Israel's attack on Iran was legitimate under international law is also being discussed. Law experts say a preemptive strike is actually only permissible under certain, very specific conditions — for example, when there is an imminent threat that cannot be prevented any other way.

Foreign policy spokesperson and co-chair of Germany's Left party, Jan van Aken, described the Israeli attack as "a serious violation of international law, which cannot be justified as self-defense."

The UNSC should meet today in order to decide on the nature of this attack, van Aken said. "All sides must immediately deescalate, also to protect the affected civilian population in Iran and Israel," he added.

Some German politicians also see danger developing inside their own country due to the Israeli attack on Iran. The country's Minister of the Interior Alexander Dobrindt said that, after talking to his counterparts in states around Germany, Israeli and Jewish institutions in Germany would get extra protection, so they are prepared in case a potential domestic threat develops.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry also said it would close all consulates and embassies world wide.

Source:  This article, authored by Christoph Hasselbach and Peter Hille was published by German broadcaster, Deutche Welle, on 14 June. commonspace.eu is republishing in full and without any edits.

photo: German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz and Israel prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, at their meeting in Israel in 2024 (archive picture).

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut