Like the world, a Middle East growing ever darker

The sequence that began on 28 February 2026 will remain in the history books as a further rupture in what remained of the rules governing relations between states.

Beyond the illegality of this clear act of aggression under international law, which does not recognise the “concept” of preventive war, it is moreover impossible to determine precisely the supposed war aims of the Trump–Netanyahu tandem, so contradictory do they appear, and ultimately never clearly articulated.

To claim that long-range Iranian ballistic strikes could have reached United States territory? No military expert worthy of the name lends even the slightest credibility to such an assertion. We are here firmly in the realm of alternative truths now embraced by a number of leading political figures.

To halt the Iranian nuclear programme? That was already the pretext put forward during the twelve-day war in June 2025, with the results we know… since approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% were concealed and over which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) now no longer has any means of control.

To bring down the Iranian regime? That is to underestimate the resilience and complexity of the organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as the multi-layered interplay of influence networks that structure it. The power of the Pasdaran will be weakened, but not eradicated, as it is engaged in a logic of existential survival.

To sever Iranian society from its leaders and push it to revolt against them? That is to misunderstand Iranian patriotism, which in times of aggression has repeatedly shown its capacity to close ranks in defence of the country. Moreover, Iranian civil society is, unfortunately, accustomed to hardship and has often endured periods of wartime economy with stoicism.

To bring democracy to the Iranian people? That the regime in Tehran is rejected by a large part of the population is certain, as the extraordinary brutality of the repression against demonstrators in January 2026 has shown. Yet democracy has never been delivered in the holds of bombers or on the back of missiles. While military infrastructure is targeted, it is above all the civilian population that is struck day after day and consequently severely weakened. How, under such conditions, can one imagine a movement of revolt capable of bringing down the regime?

It is therefore reasonably impossible to lend any credibility to these dubious attempts at justification. Meanwhile, the catastrophic consequences of Israeli–American decisions are already unfolding:

• Thousands of civilians killed, injured, amputated, traumatised,
• 700,000 displaced in Lebanon, an unknown number in Iran,
• The early signs of a regional military conflagration,
• The risk of a shockwave turning into a global economic, financial and energy crisis.

The list is not exhaustive… for war aims that remain unexplained or shift according to the erratic statements of Donald Trump. Benjamin Netanyahu, for his part, appears more consistent, in that it is not so much the Iranian regime he seeks to overthrow as the desire to reduce Iran to the weakest possible state.

The State of Israel is behaving like a frenzied actor, intoxicated by violence, unleashing itself upon civilian populations without distinction or restraint, as it has already done for months in its genocidal campaign against the Gaza Strip. We are witnessing confirmation of a headlong rush whose end no one can foresee, at a time when members of the government in Tel Aviv increasingly evoke the prospect of a Greater Israel. A hallucinatory vision of Jewish supremacists, for whom only raw military force appears to prevail.

Having enjoyed complete impunity for years in the face of their numerous exactions, Israeli leaders feel justified in continuing their deadly course. While the United States may entertain certain divergences with this project, it nonetheless continues at this stage to act fully alongside Israel without expressing the slightest criticism.

Gradually, the few rules of international law that purported to regulate relations between states are being systematically undermined, without the so-called “masters of the world” showing any real concern. International law has certainly never been perfect and has in reality never managed to free itself from the harsh reality of power relations, but we are now entering a different phase. Nothing seems capable of containing or even slowing the policies pursued by expansionist states and their supporters.

In this respect, the diplomacy of “at the same time” is not only ineffective, but in practice lends support to imperialist ventures. One cannot timidly assert that the attack of 28 February constitutes a breach of international law, while taking no tangible initiative to curb its effects. It may be permissible to condemn Hezbollah’s decision to launch missiles and drones against Israel on 2 March, but then why was the same not done regarding the near-daily Israeli bombardments of Lebanon and the occupation of part of its national territory in absolute violation of the provisions of the November 2024 ceasefire? A double standard.

More broadly, the European Union is once again both spectator and accomplice in the face of the unspeakable. It appears to have abandoned, for the foreseeable future, any ambition to influence global disorder in order to help revive certain structuring principles of international life. Only the Spanish state preserves its honour and refuses to bow its head.

We are at a turning point, and the situation appears deeply concerning. A decisive response is required before it is too late. France would do itself credit by multiplying diplomatic initiatives, particularly towards the countries of the Global South, which understand better than anyone the dangers posed by the disintegration of international law and the generalisation of the law of the strongest. The task is infinitely complex, but only battles not fought are certain to be lost.

One may, unfortunately, fear that this hope will remain little more than wishful thinking.