Berlin – As the conflict in the Middle East continues following the attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026, questions surrounding the legality of the military actions are surfacing. A recent report from the German Parliament’s Scientific Services, commissioned by Left Party MP Ulrich Thoden, has added another layer to the debate, though its conclusions are more nuanced than initial reports suggested.
The report, titled “Legal Questions Regarding the Actions of Third States in the Context of the US Military Operation Epic Fury,” doesn’t explicitly declare the attacks on Iran a violation of international law. Instead, it focuses on the potential ramifications for Germany, specifically regarding the use of US military bases within the country – such as Ramstein Air Base – for operations related to the conflict. This distinction is crucial, as some initial reporting, including a headline from the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA), framed the report as a definitive condemnation of the US and Israeli actions.
The core of the report centers on a “thought experiment”: what responsibilities would Germany bear if the attacks were, in fact, a breach of international law? The analysis explores whether Germany could be considered to be providing “aid and abetment” if Ramstein is used to support the military operations against Iran, and whether that would trigger legal consequences. The report acknowledges that such a scenario “cannot be ruled out,” but stresses that any potential liability would depend on the specific circumstances of the base’s use.
This cautious approach reflects the complexity of the legal landscape. The report notes that, according to prevailing legal scholarship, the attacks by the United States and Israel *could* be considered a violation of the prohibition of the use of force enshrined in the United Nations Charter, as they were neither undertaken in self-defense nor authorized by the UN Security Council. Still, the authors refrain from offering their own definitive judgment on this point, citing the early stage of the legal debate surrounding the conflict. They cite five sources supporting the view that the attacks are a violation of international law, and two sources offering opposing viewpoints.
The report’s analysis of potential German responsibility is similarly qualified. It highlights that a third state’s liability would only arise if a wrongful act – the attack on Iran – had occurred. Any assistance provided by Germany, such as allowing the use of Ramstein, would only be actionable to the extent that it contributed to the violation of international law. Crucially, Germany would need to have knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged unlawful act.
The report’s conclusion regarding potential German complicity is carefully worded: “Subject to the specific circumstances of use,” We see “not excluded” that Germany could be providing aid and abetment to a violation of international law by allowing the use of Ramstein. This careful phrasing underscores the report’s primary focus: assessing the legal risks for Germany, rather than issuing a sweeping condemnation of the military actions themselves.
The nuanced findings haven’t prevented political interpretations. Ulrich Thoden, the Left Party MP who commissioned the report, seized on the findings to criticize the German government’s stance. He argued that the report confirmed the illegality of the military attacks and that Germany should immediately prohibit the use of its military bases for the war effort. Thoden further claimed that failing to do so would constitute a breach of the Chancellor’s oath of office and could expose Germany to potential claims for damages from Iran. However, the report itself doesn’t explicitly support such a strong conclusion.
The report’s cautious tone is perhaps best understood in the context of its timing. Completed on March 19, 2026, just twenty days after the initial attacks, the analysis acknowledges the limited availability of comprehensive legal scholarship on the conflict. The authors note the lack of extensive legal analyses in academic journals, reflecting the rapidly evolving situation.
The situation highlights the delicate balancing act facing Germany as it navigates the geopolitical fallout from the Iran conflict. Although the report doesn’t offer a simple answer to the question of legality, it does underscore the potential legal risks associated with supporting military operations that could be deemed unlawful under international law. The debate over the use of Ramstein Air Base is likely to continue as the conflict unfolds, with the German government facing increasing pressure to clarify its position and address the concerns raised by the parliamentary report.
As of March 31, 2026, the conflict continues, with Iran responding to the initial attacks with counterstrikes against Israel and US military installations in the region. The Bundestag has already held an emergency debate on the situation, and further discussions are expected as the crisis deepens. The next key development will likely be the response of the UN Security Council, and whether any resolution is reached regarding a ceasefire or a formal investigation into potential war crimes.
The situation remains fluid, and Archysport will continue to provide updates as they become available. Readers are encouraged to share their thoughts and perspectives on the conflict in the comments section below.
Worth a look
