Steinmeier’s Iran remarks deepen rift within Germany and EU over international law

The controversy sparked by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier’s description of the Iran war as a “violation of international law” continues to reverberate.

The German government led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen have persisted in encouraging Berlin and Brussels’ support for the US-Israel position.

The German government has so far refrained from formally classifying the attack as a breach of international law.

Von der Leyen has continued to articulate similar views. Speaking recently on international law, she argued that “Europe should no longer see itself as the guardian of the old world order.”

Steinmeier, meanwhile, faced sharp criticism for his remarks, including a forceful response from the CDU/CSU parliamentary group leader in the Bundestag.

Steinmeier condemns the war

Steinmeier, who is due to leave office next year, issued pointed criticism of both the German government and the European Commission’s stance.

At the same time, as noted by German Foreign Policy, Steinmeier himself bore shared responsibility for Germany’s participation in the March 1999 attack on Yugoslavia, having served at the time as Minister of State in the Federal Chancellery.

He warned that “major powers” might be able to survive, and even profit in the short term, in “a world without rules.”

Arguing that neither Germany nor the EU could be counted among such powers, Steinmeier stressed that an international legal order with fixed rules governing the use of force is “vital for the survival of those who cannot count themselves among the major powers.”

He added that there was “no doubt” the war against Iran violated international law, and noted that the German government continued to claim it was still assessing the legality of the intervention.

“Not calling a violation of international law what it is does not make our foreign policy more convincing,” Steinmeier said.

CDU/CSU backlash against the president

Steinmeier’s remarks prompted a strong political backlash.

Jens Spahn, leader of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, stated that assessing actions “under international law” remained the responsibility of the federal government, “as in other cases.”

“I expect officials and senior representatives of the Federal Republic to await this assessment and respect it,” Spahn said, calling on Steinmeier to exercise restraint.

Alexander Hoffmann, the CSU regional group leader, echoed similar remarks on the sidelines of a parliamentary meeting.

“For us, international law has the highest priority. But it must not become a shield for terrorist regimes,” Hoffmann said.

Spiegel: AfD and Araghchi back Steinmeier

Following Steinmeier’s comments, German media outlets reacted swiftly.

Der Spiegel drew attention with a report headlined: “Steinmeier earns praise from Tehran and AfD for comments on the Iran war.”

The report cited Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on X that Steinmeier deserved recognition for condemning violations against Iranians.

The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), which frequently criticizes the president, also expressed support.

Co-leader Tino Chrupalla said: “He was right on this issue, which is rare for the Federal President. The attack on Ukraine violated international law. The attack on Iran does as well.”

Deutsche Welle, reporting on the president’s post on X, added a note emphasizing that “the role of the German president is largely ceremonial and does not reflect government policy.”

Berlin avoids condemning US-Israel

Neither the German government nor the European Commission has so far formally described the US-Israel attack on Iran as a violation of international law.

In one of his initial responses, Chancellor Merz stated that “classifications under international law” would have “relatively limited impact.”

He added that “this is not the time to lecture our partners and allies,” while also criticizing any reluctance to defend core interests with military force if necessary.

Commentary by the German Council on Foreign Relations interpreted the latter remark as amounting to “de facto full political support” for the Iran war, which has been justified as a “preemptive strike.”

Merz’s demand that Iran must “immediately cease its indiscriminate attacks” was also seen as implying a departure from previously established norms of international law.

Von der Leyen: EU no longer guardian of the old order

Echoing Merz, European Commission President von der Leyen also spoke on March 9.

Addressing the EU Ambassadors Conference, she said there were differing views on whether the war against Iran was “a matter of choice or necessity.”

She argued that this debate “partly misses the point,” insisting that Europe must “simply take reality into account.”

Referring explicitly to international law, von der Leyen stated that “Europe should no longer be the guardian of the old world order,” describing it as part of a past that “will not return.”

In apparent contradiction, she also maintained that the EU would “always defend the rules-based order,” before adding that it could “no longer rely on this alone” to safeguard its interests.

Calling for a “more realistic and interest-driven foreign policy,” von der Leyen faced sharp criticism in the European Parliament shortly afterward.

ECFR criticism: Failure to condemn Iran attack undermines Ukraine stance

The positions taken by Merz and von der Leyen have drawn strong criticism from foreign policy experts at both national and international levels.

Beyond fundamental objections, tactical arguments have also emerged. The European Council on Foreign Relations warned that if Berlin and the EU fail to uphold international law in the Iran conflict, they will struggle to invoke it credibly in the context of the war in Ukraine.

The DGAP further argued that Berlin should not support “a war of aggression that runs counter to German interests in multiple respects,” citing risks such as an energy crisis, supply chain disruptions, and a potential wave of refugees linked to the Iran war.

According to DGAP, Germany remains “a marginal actor in the Iran war,” and therefore has no compelling reason to support the intervention.

The think tank called for Berlin to initiate a “course correction,” arguing that Germany can only restore credibility and exert influence if it leaves “no doubt” that international law will remain the “foundation and guiding principle” of its foreign policy.