Betrayal of Iran: How the West Abandoned the Civilian Population during Bombings

International Law and its Strategic Disintegration

The war against Iran has sparked a debate that goes beyond the region’s borders: does international law still hold binding normative force or has it become a tool for political bargaining? Experts commissioned by the German Bundestag concluded that neither the United States nor Israel had obtained a mandate from the UN and their justifications were inconsistent. The American argument, in particular, appeared contradictory: Trump declared in 2025 that Iranian nuclear installations had been “completely destroyed”, before again brandishing the nuclear threat in 2026.

In March 2026, international law experts published a statement strongly criticizing the German government’s response: the statements “did not clearly condemn actions contrary to international law” and contributed to “further erosion of the international order based on rules.” Article 26 of the Basic Law explicitly prohibits participation in aggressive war; this principle makes Germany an active participant in maintaining the international legal order, not just a bystander. IPG Journal summarized this gradual normalization: the media demanded “more dirty work, less international law,” as if the norm itself was the problem, not its violation.

And yet, the uncomfortable truth is that the real failure runs deeper. The real betrayal is not just about the violation of international law; it lies in the West no longer unequivocally condemning war, violating international law, and consistently advocating for the regime change it has been calling for for decades. Refusing both simultaneously is not pragmatism; it is a moral failure.

Economic Shock: Germany Pays, America Benefits

The war in Iran has hit the German economy at a particularly inopportune time. Forecasts from leading German economic research institutes have revised their GDP growth projections for 2026 down to just 0.6%. For 2027, these institutes now anticipate growth of only 0.9%, down from 1.4% previously. Inflation is expected to average 2.8% in 2026. The German Economic Institute (IW) estimated the total damage to the German economy by the end of 2027 at €40 billion.

The Strait of Hormuz was and remains a key strategic chokepoint. Approximately 20% of global oil and LNG shipments pass through it daily. Iran blocked the passage, fired on tankers, and raised insurance premiums to historic levels. Goldman Sachs called this disruption to oil supply the most significant in global energy markets history. Gas prices in Europe temporarily doubled, exceeding $50 per megawatt-hour. The price of Brent crude oil rose by over 20% in the early days of the war, reaching a peak of $87.66 per barrel.

This reveals a largely ignored economic asymmetry in the German debate: the US and Israel bear the economic burden of war for a fraction of the weight borne by Europe. For the American oil and gas industry, the rise in energy prices is not a loss but a gain. According to Energy Flux calculations, nominal profits of American oil and gas companies have doubled since the start of the conflict. The Trump administration had already taken control of Venezuelan oil trading after President Maduro’s arrest, making Venezuelan crude oil accessible to the US and not China. Trump had also openly stated the intention to “take Iranian oil,” “like in Venezuela.” War as energy policy by other means: Europe pays the bill, America reaps the benefits.

Internal Insider Trading: When War Becomes a Private Money-Making Machine

A stock market thriller that led international financial authorities to investigate the situation corresponds to an image of war with no other purpose. On March 23, 2026, an unknown group of traders bet up to $650 million on oil price drops in a minute. Minutes later, Trump announced on Truth Social that discussions with Iran were “very good and productive,” causing a steep drop in oil prices of nearly 15%. Over the previous five trading days, the volume of trades was only about 700,000 barrels. According to Financial Times calculations, traders wagered over half a billion dollars on oil price declines, just before Trump’s reversal.

Capital.de and Bloomberg confirmed the phenomenon: in just two minutes, forward contracts for at least six million barrels of oil were sold just before Trump publicly mentioned a thaw. The IMF’s chief economist and several financial market experts stated that this phenomenon was “statistically difficult to explain by chance.” The director of the German Economic Institute (IW), Hüther, has not yet addressed whether it was insider trading or if experienced traders had discerned a recurring behavior in the American president: first a threat, then a retreat when the markets sanctioned it. Both hypotheses are equally concerning: either misappropriation of public funds or a world where decisions about war and peace are made regardless of the actions of an invisible negotiator whose slightest tweet can shift billions.

This is not the first time Trump’s political statements have coincided with market fluctuations with striking accuracy. Whether it’s trendy cryptocurrency, tax bets, or more recently, oil derivative products, suspicions are growing about the exploitation of signals of war and peace by the American president’s entourage. This dimension of the war in Iran – war instrumentalized for private financial gain by initiates – is, from a moral standpoint, perhaps the most sordid aspect of a troubled chapter.

Iran’s Economy Before the War: Poverty as the Context of Betrayal

To understand the extent of the betrayal, one must know the situation of the Iranian population before the war. Far from living in prosperity guaranteed by bombs, they were already facing serious economic difficulties exacerbated by Western sanctions. The IMF recorded an inflation rate of 32.5% in Iran for 2024 and forecasted 42.4% for 2025. The Iranian rial had reached a historically low level on the black market: one euro was equivalent to about 1.7 million rials. More than one in three Iranians were living on approximately $8 per day. Even before the start of the war, the World Bank predicted negative growth of 1.7% for 2025 and 2.8% for 2026.

This economic erosion was not solely due to poor internal management. It also stemmed from years of Western sanctions designed to pressure the regime without harming the population. As is often the case with sanctions, the regime survived, and the people suffered. Then came the bombings. The “theory of change,” based on maximum Western pressure – the more isolated the regime, the higher the risk of popular uprising – has never been empirically proven or realized. It exacerbated mistrust, fueled revenge, and economically depleted the population.

“Women, Life, Freedom” and the Bitter Cynicism of the Moment

The “Women, Life, Freedom” movement was a global promise. When Jina Mahsa Amini was detained in September 2022 and the Iranian people took to the streets, Western democracies expressed their solidarity. German politicians displayed the movement’s colors, and the Foreign Minister, Maria Baerbock, affirmed her commitment to a feminist foreign policy. The message was clear: Europe stands with the Iranian people.

This message was not false but was not taken seriously. When the movement was brutally repressed, the protection rate for Iranian asylum seekers in Germany was halved. In September 2025, on the third anniversary of the movement, PRO ASYL noted that despite the German government’s promises of support for vulnerable Iranians in its coalition agreement, the concrete implementation of these promises was far from satisfactory. Deportations to Iran continued even as repression and executions intensified.

Then, when Israel and the US launched a military offensive against the regime – the same regime that oppresses the Iranian people – Western defenders of the movement remained silent. The promise of a life without the mullahs’ oppression was now kept by others – with bombs, on ruins, in service of personal interests. German-Iranian journalist Natalie Amiri summed it up perfectly: Trump cared neither to free the population nor to protect human rights but only his economic interests – raw materials, oil, and gas – and to appear victorious. This is the bitter cynicism of our time: the right people had the right intention. The wrong people implemented it by force. And it is the Iranian people who pay the price.

The World’s Energy Structure and Europe’s Geopolitical Losers

The war against Iran disrupts the geopolitical balance to Europe’s detriment. Among the unexpected beneficiaries, Russia stands out: the rise in oil prices generates considerable additional income for Moscow, already under sanctions, which can be directly invested in the war against Ukraine. A perverse logic that has barely been openly addressed in Berlin.

For Germany, the structural damage is much more complex than economic forecasts suggest. Since the 2022 energy crisis, Germany has made considerable efforts to reduce its dependence on Russian gas in favor of LNG. Qatar was a partner in this endeavor. QatarEnergy’s production halt and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz directly affect the supply chain Germany had recently established as a strategic alternative. Berenberg Bank lowered its growth forecast to 1.1% and raised its inflation forecast to 2.1%, assuming a short conflict. The ZEW (Centre for European Economic Research) highlighted that the consequences of the crisis depend heavily on the conflict’s duration and predicted a significant slowdown in growth in the event of a prolonged war.

On April 7 and 8, 2026, a two-week ceasefire was finally agreed under Pakistan’s auspices. Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz for navigation under certain technical conditions. Relief was palpable in the markets. However, the humanitarian crisis and the shattered trust of the Iranian people cannot be appeased by a simple press release from Islamabad.

Structural Guilt: Between Shared Responsibility and Complicity

The question of whether Germany bears partial responsibility for what happened to the Iranian people in the spring of 2026 cannot be resolved with a simple yes or no. It requires a nuanced analysis of the sequence of events and the willingness to draw even difficult conclusions.

Germany did not bomb. It did not participate in operations. But its complicity runs deeper. It lies in the symbolic legitimization provided by Merz’s comments on the “dirty work.” It lies in the lack of clear condemnation in the face of international law, which could have allowed other states to exert political pressure. It lies in the decades-long sanction policy, which did not topple the regime but ruined the population. It lies in the systematic invisibilization of the civilian population in German media discourse. And it lies in the gap between the solidarity displayed with the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement and a protectionist policy that never lived up to those promises.

However, the real failure is even deeper: for decades, the West denounced the mullahs’ regime, imposed ineffective sanctions, and never had the courage or willingness to bear the consequences of real regime change. Today, some are trying to cut the Gordian knot – with dubious goals, regardless of civilians, with bombs instead of strategies. And the West cannot condemn this action or participate in it without betraying its own principles. That is the real dilemma. And the Iranian people are trapped in this dilemma – victims whose voices have never truly been sought.

What is Missing Today: A Concept Rather Than Morality, Honesty Rather Than Principle-Based Public Relations

The two-week ceasefire in April 2026 offers a slim opportunity. It would be naive to believe in a simple return to the previous situation. The damage is too significant: human, infrastructural, diplomatic, and economic. But this opportunity exists.

Germany must clearly and unequivocally condemn the war against Iran as a violation of international law – not only through the voice of the Federal President but through the entire federal government. Meanwhile, Germany must stop pretending that regime change demands will go unpunished. Anyone calling for regime change must specify what that change will entail, who will bear the costs, and who will finance the transition.

When Morality Is Worthless and Bombs Are Costly

The war against Iran in 2026 is a mirror. It reveals what Western democracies mean by solidarity, human rights, and an international order based on rules – and what they are truly willing to risk for it. Germany’s response is troubling: solidarity is acceptable as long as it is free. When the bombs fall, geopolitical calculus takes precedence.

From a human perspective, this is understandable, but politically catastrophic. Understandable, because the Iranian regime did indeed pose a real threat – to its population, to Israel, to regional stability. Catastrophic, because the Iranian people now bear not only the burden of their own regime but also the moralizing of the West devoid of any plan, and the ensuing silence. Those who, for decades, denounced the mullahs’ regime, cheered the bombings, and then remained silent in the face of the victims’ toll, have lost all moral credibility to claim solidarity.

President Steinmeier is right: German foreign policy must be redirected. Not because Germany must weaken, but because strength without strategy is not synonymous with leadership. International law, as highlighted by IPG Journal, is “not an option, but a constitutional obligation.” And the duty of solidarity with oppressed peoples does not stop at the borders of geopolitics and energy prices, but neither does it begin with an empty promise never fulfilled.

The Iranian people deserve both: an end to the oppressive regime – and a West that does not just praise, stay silent, and collect money.