7 March 2026
by Aleksandr Podrabinek
Source: Radio Svoboda
The dictators are getting worried, and there is a reason. ‘2026 has not begun very well,’ complained Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, Xi Jinping, in conversation with the Chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, on 25th February. It has certainly begun alarmingly for them. It started with the self-proclaimed President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, being captured and taken for trial in New York. The Americans and Israelis then destroyed the leader of the Iranian theocratic regime, Ayatollah Khomeini. Every usurper has begun to imagine that happening to them. Their outrage has been boundless.
Beijing called the liquidation of Khomeini an ‘appalling and grave violation of sovereignty’ and the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the principles of the United Nations Charter had been flouted. Pyongyang called the actions of America and Israel an ‘unlawful act of aggression’ and condemned ‘in the strongest terms America’s and Israel’s shameless criminal actions, carried out to realise their selfish and hegemonistic ambitions.’ Aleksandr Lukashenko ‘was pained and grieved to hear the tragic news of the death of the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Khomenei, as a result of the treacherous attack.’ Vladimir Putin called the events ‘a cynical violation of all the norms of human morality and international law.’ Cuba’s President, Miguel Diaz-Kanel, expressed deep condolences to the Iranian people, calling the events ‘a vile act’ and ‘murder’ contrary to the norms of international law. Pyongyang claimed that the actions of the America-Israel partnership demonstrated ‘shameless and gangster-like’ behaviour and that they had elected to ‘abuse military force for the realisation of their selfish and hegemonistic goals.’ This military campaign, in the opinion of the North Korean communists, ‘is a totally unlawful act of aggression and a most repulsive violation of sovereignty.’
These dictators’ moans about violation of international law look hypocritical and cynical if you consider how many of their political opponents they have tortured and left to rot in prison, or simply killed without trial. They forget about international law then, despite the fact that human rights are protected by the norms of international law. But the situation is in fact worse than that. In the West, indeed across the world, the voices are heard loudly and clearly proclaiming with exaggerated indignation: ‘So, now everyone can kidnap and kill presidents of other countries if they don’t like their policies?’ It is as though there was no difference between tyranny and democracy, between elected presidents and usurpers, between respect for human rights and mass political repression.
The Prime Minister of Spain, Pedro Sanchez, has come out against the war on Iran, labelling it a ‘disaster for humanity’. ‘We won’t participate in actions which undermine peace and contradict our values and interests,’ he stated. His position is more or less straightforward: he is a socialist, even in Spain he is. But his position finds some degree of sympathy in other European countries, very much so in France and somewhat less so in the UK, Germany and several other European Union countries. How could European democracies have come to such a position? I suggest several explanations.
One is the desire of elected politicians to work through their time in office, without risking difficult decisions. Such politicians as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were few in their day; now they are even fewer. Politicians prefer to occupy their posts in comfort and quietly accrue popularity and funds for the future, to relax on Epstein’s islands and other pleasant places and to make the right speeches at international conferences and the United Nations. Why get involved in issues which will only play out after they have left office? Let those who come after deal with them.
Another reason is incorrect interpretation of international law. They do not consider the murder of tens of thousands of opponents to the Islamic regime adequate cause for an international response. They publicly condemn political repression, but in reality accept its inevitability and claim they are powerless to deal with it. To tell the truth, it is not at all obvious that America and Israel had any intention to protect Iranian society from mass repression, beyond restraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The dismantling of the fundamentalist regime, to judge by events, cannot be considered the primary goal of the war, even though without it the situation in Iran can hardly be expected to radically change. But whatever happens, military intervention gives Iranians a chance to break free from religious despotism.
Another possible reason for politicians’ dissatisfaction is a kind of caste solidarity, the conviction of their unshakeable immunity from prosecution for their political decisions. Political leaders are not only anxiously possessive about the political posts they occupy but also look admiringly at those who have usurped power in other countries. They are after all colleagues, fellow members of the club of the selected, how could they be treated like common criminals?
The comrades in dictatorships wholeheartedly support this narrative. They never tire of touting their legitimacy, national sovereignty, the equality of all countries on the international stage and a country’s right to regulate its own internal affairs. ‘Yes, we kill a few of our regime’s critics, it’s our national peculiarity and it’s our internal affair. Please respect our customs and don’t force yours on us,’ these colleagues tell their Western counterparts. ‘Let’s instead discuss economic growth, trade, education, scientific cooperation, global warming and mutually beneficial cooperation. Let’s not traumatise each other with accusations of illegitimacy, even less threaten war or arrest. Let’s talk as much and for as long as we can, more diplomacy and fewer demands.’
After the politicians, the public has begun to get worried – primarily its left-leaning members. The perspective of state actors being held to account is clearly not something to their liking. This is understandable. The socialist ideal gives priority to the state over the individual, while socialism in practice gives supremacy to state administrators over ordinary citizens. So, these people say, leave the dictators who represent the highest state interests in peace. This is why the indignation is so great about America’s and Israel’s intention to deprive Iran of a nuclear arsenal, simultaneously giving the Iranian people a rare chance to shake off the obscurantist regime and to stand up for their freedom.
Unfortunately, there are many more dictatorships across the globe, while countries prepared to resist them are few. It would be right to have broad international participation in military campaigns such as this one against Iran, but it is not worth counting on it. As long as tyrannies enjoy the same rights under international law as democracies, international law will remain paralysed, human rights conventions will be nothing more than pious hopes, and the defence of human rights in tyrannical regimes will be the lot of that handful of brave people ready to risk life and freedom for the sake of genuine peace and the rule of law.
Translated by Oscar Seecharan
