Europe
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.
Europe
Hungary’s new PM Magyar vows absolute ban on illegal migration, challenging Brussels over fines
Hungary’s newly elected Prime Minister Péter Magyar has pledged to block all illegal migration, reject European Union quotas, and challenge Brussels’ punitive fines, signaling a highly restrictive border policy even as he vows to restore ties with European partners.
In his first interview with the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung since taking office, Magyar outlined his administration’s strategic roadmap. He addressed the smear campaigns directed against him by the former government of Viktor Orbán, relations with the EU, migration policy, and the economic necessity of maintaining energy ties with Russia.
Reflecting on his transition to power, Magyar noted that the Orbán administration targeted him, his family, and his colleagues during a highly polarized campaign.
“I have known Viktor Orbán for a long time. What happened during the election campaign was no surprise to me, even if it might be difficult to imagine in other countries,” Magyar said. “The mudslinging campaign was not just directed at me personally, but also against my family, my colleagues, and my friends. However, those who faced each other were not Hungarians against Hungarians; it was Viktor Orbán and his vassals standing against the Hungarian nation. One of our most important campaign promises is that we will do everything we can to reunite the Hungarian nation.”
Despite running a pro-European campaign to secure victory, Magyar acknowledged fundamental disagreements with Brussels, particularly on migration. He argued that former Prime Minister Orbán’s hardline stance during the 2015 European migrant crisis was correct.
“My government will pursue an extremely strict and decisive policy regarding illegal migration,” Magyar said. “You can be as angry with Viktor Orbán as you want—and no one has criticized him more than I have—but when the migration crisis began in 2015, he was right. Many member states have now admitted they made wrong decisions at the time. In any case, we will protect our homeland, our country’s borders, and the external borders of Europe.”
“Hungary will not accept any illegal migrants”
Responding to whether Hungary would comply with newly implemented EU asylum rules, which mandate member states to conduct processing procedures at external borders, Magyar delivered a firm refusal regarding quotas and penalties.
“I can only say this: Hungary will not accept any illegal migrants. We will not pay any penalties for this either,” Magyar said. “However, we will help protect Europe’s external borders, whether in Greece, Malta, or Italy. The 2015 migration crisis must be a lesson for Europe. The most important duty of European politicians is to protect the safety of the people. I believe there are many ways to stop illegal migration without violating European Union rules. It is simply a matter of being able to negotiate.”
Magyar also dismissed the current relevance of a European Court of Justice ruling imposing a daily fine of 1 million euros on Hungary for failing to implement EU asylum procedures, arguing the decision is outdated.
“The court’s decision was made at a very different time and under a different legal framework,” Magyar said. “Today, we are in a completely different situation. This decision no longer reflects today’s reality. Today, there are many countries acting just like Hungary, yet this European Court of Justice decision does not apply to them. I find this incredibly unfair. In order to protect our borders and avoid having to pay the daily fine of 1 million euros, we will hold talks with our European partners and find a common solution.”
While acknowledging that the judicial ruling is final and cannot be appealed, Magyar described the financial burden on Hungarian citizens as unjust.
“The decision cannot be appealed. We are looking for new rules and opportunities to avoid paying the fine,” he said. “It is unfair and disproportionate that the people of Hungary must pay a fine of 1 million euros every day. Similarly, it is a great injustice that while other member states receive these funds, Hungary has been provided with no financial resources for the wire fence it constructed to protect the external border of the European Union.”
“Exclusion only makes the far-right stronger”
Magyar strongly opposed pushback from member states—particularly pressure from Germany—to transition EU foreign policy decision-making from unanimity to qualified majority voting, defending the preservation of national sovereignty.
While rejecting the confrontational rhetoric favored by Orbán toward Brussels, Magyar emphasized the importance of compromise among sovereign states.
“I served as a diplomat within the European Union for a long time, and I know very well how difficult it is to reach a consensus among 27 countries. Yet, most of the time, this is achieved,” Magyar said. “Orbán always said, ‘We must defeat Brussels.’ I do not think that is the point. The point is to understand each other, to persuade, and not to try to defeat one another. People do not want a United States of Europe; they want a European Union based on strong member states. For this reason, I do not support transitioning to a majority voting system in many areas instead of the unanimity rule at this stage. We will negotiate and find a middle ground.”
Addressing the political rise of far-right parties across Europe, particularly in France and Germany, Magyar criticized traditional political elites for being disconnected from public anxieties and relying on political moralizing.
He warned that isolating these populist movements is counterproductive.
“I do not like labels like far-right or far-left. I do not like ideological wars,” Magyar said. “People deserve more than politically correct speeches where ideological labels are slapped on one another. I have no intention of interfering in the internal affairs of other member states, and I will not do so; on this point, I differ from Orbán. However, I observe that some countries make mistakes in combating extremist parties. In many countries, politicians do not act honestly. They do not understand people’s fears and expectations, and they do not dare to talk openly about problems and face them. They use the language of political correctness and, at the end of the day, fail to grasp reality itself. These are precisely the mistakes that certain groups exploit. Excluding these people and these parties, building a wall of isolation around them, is not a solution on its own. Exclusion only makes these forces stronger. In many countries, these mistakes have been recognized, but not yet everywhere.”
Asked if this critique applied to Germany, Magyar maintained his criticism of governing establishments.
“In many countries, the political, media, and economic elites protect their own positions and do not always address the real fears and problems of the people. But the public does not forget this. That is why what we need is honesty, honesty, and once again, honesty,” he said.
On the debate over whether conservative factions in the European Parliament should cooperate with the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, Magyar shared his perspective on the future strategy of the European People’s Party (EPP), which includes his own party, Tisza.
“In the European Parliament, political forces must always seek a majority, and grand coalitions between the center-left and center-right can function. Germany and Austria are good examples of this,” Magyar said. “However, this does not always work, and that is why the CDU/CSU and the European People’s Party, which includes my party Tisza, may have to make a decision one day. In my view, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) are the natural allies of the European People’s Party. Whether they want to cooperate with the AfD is not my decision to make. However, I believe that talking to one another and listening to the other’s arguments never causes harm. What we accept from each other’s proposals is an entirely separate matter.”
“Europe will partially return to Russian energy after the war”
Defending Hungary’s decision to continue importing crude oil and natural gas from Russia despite the war in Ukraine, Magyar emphasized the country’s landlocked geography and economic constraints.
“The Hungarian people elected me as the Prime Minister of Hungary. My government’s duties include ensuring energy security, security of supply, and the lowest possible energy prices,” Magyar said. “In recent years, Hungary has become one of the poorest and most corrupt countries in the European Union. Three million people live below the poverty line. Our neighbors in the European Union must understand that Hungary is a landlocked country. We are still dependent on Russian oil, and we cannot change this overnight. We have not seen economic growth for years, and we need cheap energy to grow. Of course, we are doing everything we can to diversify our energy resources, but we cannot afford to see our companies’ competitiveness decrease further and Hungarian families’ energy poverty increase. I think Europe will partially turn back to Russian energy resources and lift sanctions when the war ends, because the competitiveness of all of Europe is at stake here. In a future state of peace, no one has an interest in maintaining a new economic and political Cold War. For this, of course, the war must first end.”
While Orbán maintained close ties with American conservative movements and received explicit support from Donald Trump, Magyar indicated that the change in leadership in Budapest would not damage relations with Washington.
“The US is Hungary’s natural ally in NATO and a highly important economic partner. What happened during the election campaign will not change this. We will maintain good relations with every American administration,” Magyar said.
Magyar criticized Orbán’s personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, arguing instead for a pragmatic, non-ideological approach to Moscow in the post-war era.
“I know the role of Russia in Hungarian history very well. I have not forgotten the years 1849 and 1956. In both periods, Russian troops bloodily suppressed the Hungarian freedom movement,” Magyar said. “But on the other hand, the reality is that geography does not change. We must accept this as it is. Therefore, we must develop pragmatic relations with Russia once the war against Ukraine ends. Nonetheless, it is extremely clear that Russia currently poses a security risk to all of Europe. It is unacceptable that people in Europe must live in fear of Russian sabotage or a Russian attack. That is why this war must end, and we must provide international security guarantees to Ukraine. However, Europe can only develop when normalcy returns, and Russia cannot have an interest in a new Cold War becoming permanent on the continent.”
“We can turn a new page with Ukraine”
Magyar pledged to end the hostile state-sponsored propaganda directed at Ukraine by the previous administration, emphasizing his respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and his personal involvement in humanitarian efforts.
“We want to build good relations with all our neighbors, not least because a Hungarian minority lives in each of them. This also applies to Ukraine,” Magyar said. “We have always stated that Ukraine is the victim in the Russia-Ukraine war and that Ukraine has the right to its territorial integrity. When the Russians bombed the largest children’s hospital in Kyiv in the summer of 2024, I immediately went to Kyiv with our volunteers and personally delivered the humanitarian aid of the Hungarian people. Right after the attack, we set off in a 30-year-old Ford Transit and reached Kyiv within 20 hours under air raids and missile bombardments. I did not see any other European politician at that bombed hospital. We are currently holding talks with Ukraine at a technical level, and we are working to reach an agreement within a few days to restore and guarantee the language, education, and cultural rights of the 100,000 Hungarians living in Ukraine. Today, we need to clarify certain matters with Ukraine regarding our minority in that country, and I hope we will achieve this in the coming days. Ethnic Hungarians there currently do not have the opportunity to use their mother tongue in their relations with official authorities. However, if we resolve these issues on the basis of mutual interest, we can turn a new page.”
Magyar cautioned that future security guarantees for Ukraine must be concrete and enforceable, unlike previous international agreements.
“In 1994, the famous Budapest Memorandum was signed, in which the US and other major powers guaranteed Ukraine’s independence and integrity. However, these promises were not kept, because empty slogans are of little use,” Magyar said. “Right now, everything is at stake in Ukraine. A large number of people are dying, and it is possible that this country will lose part of its territory. Therefore, Ukraine needs real, enforceable international guarantees.”
However, the Prime Minister reiterated that Hungary would remain militarily uninvolved in the conflict, stating that arms shipments do not constitute a genuine security guarantee.
“I do not believe that weapons are a security guarantee. Security guarantees can only be provided by the international community,” the Hungarian leader concluded. “Hungary cannot play a decisive role here; this is the work of the major powers. We can provide diplomatic and humanitarian aid, and Hungary can also provide a suitable ground for negotiations.”
Europe
EU agrees new deportation rules allowing migrant return centers outside the bloc
European Union lawmakers and member states have reached agreement on new legislation overhauling rules governing the deportation of asylum seekers.
According to Politico, the agreed text allows asylum applicants whose claims have been rejected to be sent to dedicated return centers established outside the EU.
As a key condition of the deal, measures to establish the return centers are set to be implemented immediately.
The move is said to be of particular importance to the Netherlands and Germany. Other provisions of the legislation are expected to take effect one year later.
The agreement must still receive final approval from both the EU Council and the European Parliament before it can formally enter into force.
European Commissioner for Migration Magnus Brunner said the agreement would help the EU regain control over both those arriving in the bloc and those required to leave it.
According to data from Eurostat, the proportion of migrants denied asylum in the European Union who ultimately leave the bloc remains at around 27%.
“We must give people the feeling again that we have everything under control,” Brunner said.
The new framework grants member states the authority to transfer individuals ordered to leave EU territory to return centers located outside the bloc.
Several member states are already examining the option, while human rights organizations have warned of risks of rights violations and abuse during the process.
The legislation also introduces stricter measures, including home searches, extended detention periods, entry bans, and penalties for individuals deemed security threats or those who refuse to cooperate.
French Member of the European Parliament François-Xavier Bellamy told the publication: “For years, Europe sent the worst possible message: even if you had no right to stay, there was a high likelihood that nothing would happen. That era is ending. If you do not have the right to remain in Europe, you must leave.”
The initiative, however, has faced opposition from lawmakers affiliated with liberal and left-wing groups.
Melissa Camara, a representative of the Greens group, described the agreement as “a legal arsenal serving a xenophobic ideology” and criticized both offshore centers and the detention of minors.
Marta Welander, head of the International Refugee Committee, said the new measures signaled “a troubling new era.”
Welander argued that the rules would normalize migrant raids and increase the risk of people being deported to countries where they could face persecution or torture.
According to available data, the number of migrants living within the European Union reached 64.2 million in 2025. During the same period, the foreign-born population arriving from outside the bloc increased by 2.1 million people annually.
In 2010, the European Union was home to approximately 40 million migrants.
As a result, the migrant population has increased by more than 60% over the past 15 years, while migrants’ share of the EU population has risen to 14.2%.
In December last year, US President Donald Trump said Europe faced the risk of destruction because of the migration policies pursued by European countries.
Trump had previously argued that the continent was facing a wave of migration and that, as a result, Europe was “no longer the Europe it once was.”
Europe
Anthropic invites EU cybersecurity agency to access Mythos AI hacking model
Anthropic has invited the European Union to access Mythos, its powerful AI-powered hacking tool, by sending an invitation to the bloc’s cybersecurity agency.
A European Commission official said the AI company issued the formal invitation following a meeting with the Commission in San Francisco last Thursday, adding that the EU must now establish a mechanism that would allow access to the model under appropriate security safeguards.
Bloomberg reported on Monday that ENISA, the EU’s cybersecurity agency based in Athens, would be granted access to Mythos.
European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said the Commission had held “several productive meetings with Anthropic” and “welcomes the latest developments regarding potential future access.”
Anthropic unveiled Mythos in early April and warned that the model outperformed most humans in identifying and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities.
The disclosure raised concerns that the model could be used to carry out large-scale attacks against critical and sensitive systems if it fell into the hands of cyber adversaries.
European officials were unable to access the cutting-edge cybersecurity AI technology for weeks, prompting urgent calls from European lawmakers and government officials to secure access.
Cybersecurity officials also urged Europe to develop its own version of the technology.
“This latest development is extremely important in helping us gain a clear understanding of the potential risks. We should not forget that Mythos is not an isolated case and that a new wave of powerful models is entering the market,” Regnier said.
An ENISA official said the agency does not currently have active access to the model but is working to make it operational.
The Commission is developing a formal action plan to respond to powerful AI hacking tools.
According to an industry official, the Commission has indicated that it wants to publish the plan before the summer break.
-
Asia2 weeks agoIran conflict accelerates yuan adoption and record CIPS volumes in global oil trade
-
Asia2 weeks agoXi and Putin deepen partnership with call for ‘multipolar world’
-
Middle East1 week agoLeaked documents show IRGC routed Chinese military equipment through UAE
-
Europe2 weeks agoFive EU states push gradual single market access for Western Balkans
-
Europe1 week agoFrench justice minister calls for three-year halt to legal immigration
-
Middle East1 week agoIran says Hormuz transit will remain free but ships must cover operational costs
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoNATO weighs Hormuz security mission if Iran blockade remains in place by July
-
Europe2 weeks agoGermany initiates diplomatic contact with France’s National Rally ahead of presidential election
