– Those who maintain that Israel and the United States should have waited for an Iranian nuclear attack before invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter on self-defence are engaging in a cynical misuse of the law in order to weaken the strategic position of Israel and the United States.

On the same day that Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide chose to condemn Israel’s defence against Islamist attempts at annihilation, the Pakistani Defence Minister delivered a message that casts Pakistan’s pathetic role as a peace broker in a stark light. Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif stated the following via X (formerly Twitter):

“Israel is evil and a curse upon humanity. While peace talks are underway in Islamabad, genocide is being committed in Lebanon. Innocent civilians are being killed by Israel – first in Gaza, then in Iran and now in Lebanon – and the bloodshed continues unabated. I hope and pray that those who created this cancerous state on Palestinian land in order to rid themselves of European Jews will burn in hell.” — Khawaja M. Asif (@KhawajaMAsif), 9 April 2026.

Barth Eide, who has long been persona non grata in Israel, is undoubtedly aware that his statements carry no weight among decision-makers in Jerusalem or Washington, D.C. Asif openly advocates the dream of Israel’s destruction and mirrors the stated objectives of the regime in Tehran, Hizbollah, and Hamas. This is a fact that the United States, Europe, and Norwegian politicians are fully aware of. The great difference lies in the willingness to distinguish between right and wrong, and in the ability to stand up for what is right.

In the Norwegian public discourse, one seldom hears about the suffering to which the Israeli civilian population is subjected. Terrorists neutralised by Israel are in Norwegian media largely referred to as civilians. Our response to those with selective morality, such as Geir Kjell Andersland, who accuses Israel of killing children in the familiar style of the blood libel, is very simple: the responsibility for the suffering of the children lies primarily with Hamas/Hizbollah/Iran. Neither he nor those like him speak of the suffering of Israeli children over many years, involving internal displacement, bomb shelters, curtailed schooling, and arbitrary death at the hands of terrorists. Where are the accusations against the Iranian regime, which recruits children into war? Where are the accusations against the PA and Hamas, which indoctrinate children to hate already at kindergarten age? It is they who deprive children of their childhood. If one truly cared about the children and the civilians used as human shields by terrorists, one would target them, not only Israel.

Europe’s selective morality and international law

The global response to the Iran conflict is characterised by a hypocritical approach to international law. International law is invoked only when it serves a particular political agenda against Israel and now also the United States. Those who consistently accuse Israel of violations of international law, while systematically overlooking the bestial acts of the terrorists, have in reality chosen sides.

Supporting the regime in Iran and its associates, such as Hizbollah and Hamas, differs in principle little from support for totalitarian regimes in the past. The war against present-day Iran may in historical context be compared to the struggle against Nazism. For Israel, the conflict with Iran is existential – a struggle for survival against an enemy that seeks total annihilation.

No one can deny Iran’s many years of threats to annihilate Israel (and the United States), their extensive missile warfare, or their use of terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Houthis. The objective of “the ring of fire” was explicitly to remove Israel and its Jews from the face of the earth, as the first step in the struggle for a new Muslim caliphate that was to encompass the entire world. Those who maintain that Israel and the United States should have waited for an Iranian nuclear attack before invoking Article 51 of the UN Charter on self-defence are engaging in a cynical misuse of the law in order to weaken the strategic position of Israel and the United States.

Iran’s blocking of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz constitutes a blatant violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, which was intended to ensure unimpeded transit through international straits. The fact that the UN Secretary-General refrains from criticising Iran also for this, but instead uses every opportunity to condemn Israel, reinforces the claim that the UN has been reduced to an instrument for a specific political agenda. Israel and the United States cannot yield to an international community marked by such double standards.

The objectives of the war and the ceasefire

President Donald Trump has defined four central objectives for the defensive war against Iranian aggression:

1. Elimination of the regime’s nuclear weapons capability.
2. Destruction of the regime’s ballistic missile capability.
3. Cessation of Iranian-supported terrorist activity in the region.
4. Neutralisation of Iran’s military infrastructure, particularly the navy.

After 40 days of operations, significant results have been achieved with regard to points 2 and 4, but the objectives in points 1 and 3 have still not been reached. The regime still possesses enriched uranium hidden in extensive tunnel facilities that surpass even Hitler’s bunkers in complexity – facilities that the international community has ignored for years. As for the terrorist organisations, they will quickly be able to regroup and rearm if they are given room to manoeuvre through hasty ceasefire agreements.

History has shown that Islamist actors view ceasefires as an opportunity to gather strength for the next attack. The IDF has operated in Lebanon for decades without achieving lasting security, precisely because international pressure has often forced solutions that are interpreted as weakness by the adversary and exploited to attack more effectively in the next round.

The day after the temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran, the regime declared the Strait of Hormuz de facto closed. This is a direct consequence of Tehran perceiving it as a victory over the military power of the United States and the IDF. The regime knows that it enjoys support from parts of Europe and the UN, irrespective of its own abuses. The insufficient international reaction to the killing of tens of thousands of Iranian civilians in January has reinforced the regime’s sense that the immunity it has enjoyed for 47 years still applies.

The situation is now characterised by Israelis feeling a sense of strategic loss, while Iran and Hizbollah present themselves as victors. This message spreads throughout the region and creates the impression that Israel can be worn down over time through patience and asymmetric warfare.

The way forward

For the United States, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is more than a regional conflict. The United States is self-sufficient in energy, but approximately 50 per cent of China’s oil is transported through this strait. What is at stake is therefore not only Israel’s existence, but the global balance of power between the United States and China, as well as Europe’s and NATO’s future relevance. The war against the regime in Iran is a struggle that may well contribute to defining an entirely new geopolitical world order.

It is worth recalling that Japan in 1941 attacked Pearl Harbor in response to an American oil embargo. The objective was to neutralise the American fleet in order to secure access to oil fields in Indonesia. How China will respond to a situation in which the United States takes control of its primary energy supply through the Strait of Hormuz remains to be seen. The same applies to today’s wavering Europe and NATO.

It is crucial that Israel maintains its focus on the existential struggle, rather than allowing itself to be influenced by rhetoric from peripheral European actors. Israel cannot afford to allow the geopolitical stumbling blocks that European powers at times place – whether deliberately or as a result of poor judgement – to stand in the way of a resolute fight against terrorism. Israel cannot rely on or negotiate with terrorists and their supporters. Only when the terror regime in Iran and its terror arms are significantly weakened and without nuclear weapons is there hope for peace.

After the terror regime has been dealt a definitive defeat, Iran may once again assume the role of an ally, in line with the situation as it was 47 years ago. We hope that the European community will eventually choose to place itself on the right side of history this time.