I started writing this response after reading the article ‘Irani: Pse tani dhe pse kjo ndërhyrje?’, ( ​”Iran: Why now and why this intervention?”) by the Israeli ambassador to Kosovo, Her Excellency Tamar Ziv. I would like to begin with the points on which, to some degree, I agree with her: the Islamic Republic of Iran is a repressive regime that has systematically denied basic freedoms and sponsored armed non-state actors in the region.

Now, while the article correctly identifies some of the long-standing tensions surrounding the Iranian regime’s domestic and regional policies, acknowledging these issues does not justify the narrative presented in it. On the contrary, it presents a dangerously incomplete picture, portraying military escalation as an inevitable necessity — a narrative that is a dangerous revision of history, ignoring the deliberate political choices that led to this crisis.

To achieve lasting peace, we must move beyond one-sided rhetoric and address the structural double standards that fuel this cycle of violence.

The Dismantling of Diplomacy
The Case for Global Rule of Law

The article characterises the recent military action as a “necessity” following failed diplomacy. However, it omits the most significant diplomatic collapse in recent history: the unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA (the Iran Nuclear Deal) by the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in 2018 — a deal that international inspectors confirmed Iran was following.

Diplomacy was not exhausted; it was systematically dismantled.

By abandoning a functional nuclear framework in favourof “maximum pressure”, the US and Israel did not prevent a nuclear threat; they created a vacuum that led directly to the current conflict.

The Nuclear Double Standard

A central theme of the article written by Her Excellency Tamar Ziv is the “threat” of a nuclear Iran. Yet any serious discussion of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East must address the elephant in the room: Israel’s own nuclear arsenal.

To engage in any serious debate about nuclear risk, we must confront a structural asymmetry. Iran, an NPT signatory, has been subject to extensive inspections. Conversely, Israel remains outside the NPT, maintains a policy of nuclear opacity, and possesses an uninspected nuclear arsenal. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a landmark 1968 international agreement, in force since 1970, aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, fostering safe nuclear technology for peaceful use, and advancing disarmament.

According to the Arms Control Association (ACA), Iran’s programme is the most heavily inspected in the world, whereas Israel’s estimated 90 warheads have never been officially acknowledged or inspected.

The Arms Control Association (ACA) is a United States-based non-partisan membership organisation founded in 1971, with the self-stated mission of “promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies”.

Demanding transparency from one state while accepting total secrecy from another undermines the legitimacy of the rules being invoked.

To achieve lasting peace in the region requires a Middle East free of nuclear weapons, applied universally, not selectively.

Leaders and People

The article paints the Iranian regime as the sole aggressor, but it fails to scrutinise the current Israeli leadership under Benjamin Netanyahu. Just as many Iranians suffer under a hardline theocracy, many observers argue that the current Israeli government has prioritised military expansion and “bullying” tactics over genuine peace-building or a two-state solution. Escalating military strikes — often conducted without providing the international community with verifiable evidence of an imminent threat — risks a regional conflagration that serves political interests rather than the safety of civilians.

A Fractured Alliance and the Loss of Legal Mandate

In the article, Operation “Roaring Lion” is presented as a “necessary” and “calculated” intervention, but it ignores the devastating reality of the current regional escalation.

Personally, I know a thing or two about this, because last week I had to leave peaceful Qatar and move my family to the safety of Kosovo.

Far from being a strategic success, the current campaign led by Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump represents a breakdown of international law and a betrayal of the diplomatic progress once upheld by the global community.

What is unfolding now — under the banners of “Roaring Lion” and “Epic Fury” — resembles a pre-emptive war conducted without a legal mandate. And the lack of verifiable evidence of an imminent threat has caused a historic rift among Western allies.

The Refusal of the Global Community

Perhaps the most telling evidence against this campaign is the refusal of traditional allies to participate.

The UK’s Red Line – In a historic move, the United Kingdom — the US’s closest military partner — has reportedly refused to allow the use of its sovereign bases, including RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia, for these strikes, signalling a profound legal and strategic dissent.

NATO and German Leaders — This is not a NATO war. Not our war.

Italy’s Stance – Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, previously a stern Trump supporter, has explicitly stated that Italy will not enter this war, describing the US-Israeli strikes as an intervention conducted “outside the framework of international law”. If the “evidence” for this war were as clear as the article suggests, these allies would not be risking diplomatic friction with Washington in order to distance themselves from it.

When even the closest military partners refuse to participate, the claim of “necessity” loses all international credibility.

Leadership and “Strike First” Doctrine

The policy of pre-emptive strikes without verifiable evidence sets a catastrophic precedent for the 21st century. By conducting surprise attacks that have killed Iranian leadership and civilians alike during active negotiations, the US and Israel have abandoned the UN Charter’s principles of sovereignty. We are witnessing a “travesty of justice” in which military might is being used to bypass the very international institutions meant to prevent global chaos.

Leadership and Accountability

Former prosecutor in the case against Slobodan Milošević, Geoffrey Nice, speaking to Al Jazeera, stated that the US-Israel war on Iran was not based on an imminent threat and warned that holding powerful states accountable is increasingly “unrealistic”:

“The way to approach the question of legality is to consider, first, a conflict between two states — and then a war launched by those states against another — and to assess whether that can be legal. For that, the fundamental question is: was there an imminent threat? So far, there has been no evidence.”

In simple terms, the doctrine of “strike first, negotiate later” erodes the foundational principles of international law.

Nice added:

窗体顶端

“We need to accept that accountability for breaches of international humanitarian law, the law of war, by large countries such as Russia, China and those they favour, such as Israel, are now unrealistic and things of the past. As has been made quite clear by the Secretary of War, Hegseth, there is no respect for the law because politics takes over, and politics does not have to regard the law.”

Now, more than ever, one also has to ask why the world should trust the moral authority of a leadership currently under intense international scrutiny — Donald Trump for his erratic decision-making, from capturing the head of a state — Venezuela’s President Maduro — to threatening to invade a fellow NATO member over Greenland. As for Israeli leader Netanyahu, we need look no further than his handling of the Gaza crisis.

Amnesty International has concluded that Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has committed genocidal acts in Gaza, citing the deliberate imposition of conditions calculated to bring about physical destruction. To ignore this context while arguing for further escalation is to distort the moral landscape entirely.

The Regional Smoke Screen: Iran as a Cover for Atrocities

Another lingering question remains, apart from Netanyahu’s push to use the time of Donald Trump as much as he can in order to deal with Iran and establish Israel as the dominant force in the region: is there something else behind this policy?

As the international community remains transfixed by ballistic missiles over Tehran and Beirut, leading Israeli human rights organisations like B’Tselem — the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, a non-profit organisation based in Jerusalem — and Breaking the Silence (Shovrim Shtika), an NGO established by veterans of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), warn that this regional escalation is being used as a tactical “smoke screen”.

The “Gaza Playbook” in Lebanon

Since the escalation on 2 March, the “Gaza Playbook” has been applied to southern Lebanon and Beirut. With over one million people displaced, human rights monitors have condemned the IDF’s evacuation orders as “blatantly illegal”. The “wanton destruction” of civilian infrastructure appears to be a deliberate military model designed to render entire regions uninhabitable, mirroring the devastation seen in Gaza.

Annexation Under Cover of War

The most significant transformation is occurring in the shadows of the West Bank. B’Tselem’s report, Under Cover of War, argues that the military focus on Iran has created an “era of impunity” for Israeli decision-makers. While the world watches the skies, a surge in state-backed settler violence is facilitating the displacement of Palestinian communities. Data indicates that since the start of 2026, over 700 Palestinians have been forcibly displaced by armed militias operating amid a “blurring of military lines”.

The Moral and Legal Abyss

Breaking the Silence, an organisation of former Israeli soldiers, has challenged the rhetoric of “liberation” regarding the strikes on Iran. They argue that a government sustaining a repressive regime in occupied territories cannot claim the moral high ground abroad. The use of heavy weaponry in Iran’s dense urban centresis leading the region into a “moral and legal abyss” of unprecedented civilian casualties.

They stated that while the Israeli government and media present the attacks as a “moral mission to help Iranians,” it is a contradiction to claim the moral high ground while “sustaining a violent and repressive regime” at home (the occupation)

Conclusion: The Cost of Diversion

The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza remains the most neglected casualty of this regional shift. As media attention follows the high-intensity conflict in Iran, the ongoing famine and skyrocketing death toll in Gaza have slipped from global headlines.

Peace is the Only Way Forward

History has shown that “regime change” through foreign bombardment consistently fails, leaving behind only mounting casualties and economic instability that the entire world must pay for. Peace is an active political choice — one that requires accountability for both Tehran and Jerusalem. We must insist on a framework where power is constrained by law, and where the same standards of human rights and nuclear transparency apply to all. Anything less is a surrender to disorder.

Peace cannot and should not be seen as a sign of weakness; it is the only sustainable way to protect global energy markets and human lives. We must demand an immediate ceasefire and a return to a rules-based international order where no leader is above the law.

Eki Rrahmani

Prishtine, March 2026