European leaders have clearly set out to shape 21st-century geopolitics through a brand-new concept: human rights with European characteristics. Could this be their response to “socialism with Chinese characteristics”?

Any assessment of EU policies carried out under the banner of human rights naturally raises a preliminary question: Are these human rights, as defined by Brussels, a strategic objective of the EU, an end in themselves, or simply a geopolitical tool—a tactic aimed at achieving other goals? In other words, behind the EU members’ constant invocation of human rights, is the ultimate goal to grant rights to populations that have been unjustly wronged?

If by “human rights” we mean the rights enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a brief global overview will reveal unequivocally that these rights, which Brussels boasts so much about, exist nowhere else but in the ink and saliva of the European elites.

Human Rights with European Characteristics: A User’s Guide

Iran offers a particularly telling example of this 21st-century European “humanism.”

Admittedly, statements by European leaders regarding the Israeli-American military assault on Iran have undergone tactical adjustments.

After applauding this attack against what he called a “regime of terror,” Chancellor Merz—whose country is reportedly seeking to acquire nuclear weapons at this very moment—subsequently tempered his enthusiasm, suddenly concluding that the United States was acting “without a convincing strategy.” The same pattern can be observed among its European counterparts, including those in the United Kingdom, as well as in the highest echelons of the European Union: at times they say they are ready to assist Washington (something the Europeans have never stopped doing behind the scenes), and at other times they criticize the U.S. president for going it alone. This behavior suggests that there is coordination at the European level on the Iran issue.

The contradictory European statements regarding the Israeli-American campaign against Iran bear a striking resemblance to the approach Europeans have taken toward the ethnic cleansing of the last remaining patches of land in Palestine:

• First, the groundwork is laid for the aggressor by fabricating pretexts that will legitimize the implementation of the plan of aggression: coordination between the media and political apparatuses is essential for this purpose;
  
• Public outrage—which is increasingly repulsed by the spectacle of horrors—is appeased by sporadically adopting a slightly less sadistic tone toward the victims;
  
• We continue to obey the tycoons of the military-industrial and financial complexes, but silently and behind the scenes;
  
• We are stepping up the crackdown on dissent through the media, legislation, and the legal system.

The French president’s reaction to the kidnapping of Venezuela’s head of state followed the same pattern: after singing the praises of the U.S. operation—which was as deadly as it was illegal—he quickly had to tone down his jubilation, at least in his choice of words, in the face of the outcry his message sparked, including within the French diplomatic corps.

So, nothing new under the sun when it comes to Europe’s strategy toward Iran. Just as the Zionist occupation regime could not have committed this avalanche of crimes—which is still ongoing—without the support of its Western sponsors, so too could Washington not have attacked Iran without the media, diplomatic, and logistical support of its EU vassals.

The Plank in the Europeans’ Own Eye

While Israel’s Euro-Atlantic backers continue to display impassive indifference to the global outrage sparked by the genocide of the Palestinians, we are being led to believe that the perpetrators of this slaughter are suddenly driven by a “humanist” ambition to free the world from the mullahs’ Islamic “regime” —a “regime” that, as they systematically fail to mention, emerged from the Iranian Revolution, which itself was the result of the Iranian people’s rejection of the Shah’s dictatorship, which had been imposed on them by the West.

The stated rationale for this so-called “human rights” plan is supposedly the concern of the Euro-Atlantic bloc and its Israeli hitman for the rights of the Iranian people and global security. In other words, the Western imperialist powers—without whom Israel could not have committed even a tenth of the acts of barbarism that have shocked the world’s conscience—claim to want to save the Iranian people and world peace by ridding them of the mullahs’ theocratic “regime,” which, according to them, poses the greatest threat to global security (the tens of millions of Iranians who attended the funeral of their assassinated leader definitively debunk these allegations).

In the eyes of Westerners, then, the messianic Israeli regime—which displaces millions of people in the Middle East, massacres them by the tens of thousands, razes their cities and villages with thousands of metric tons of bombs, kidnaps their men, women, and children, tortures them, and subjects them to rape, including by dogs; erases residents from civil registries; and adopts, with complete impunity, “laws” to confiscate these territories; this regime, then, built on apartheid, expansionism, and genocide, would—alongside its Western backers—be best positioned to ensure respect for the rights of the Iranian people and to restore global security.

Even beyond these realities, it goes without saying that no international law authorizes such acts of aggression against a state that has not attacked anyone—including the assassination of its highest-ranking military, political, and religious leaders; the massacre of its schoolgirls; the destruction of its energy resources and its civilian and military infrastructure; and the imposition of a naval blockade that adds to forty years of economic sanctions. The sole effect of these actions is to tie the fate of the entire world to that of Iran, causing energy costs to skyrocket and fueling fears of a global economic collapse.

Iran’s nuclear program! the supremacists keep harping on. Isn’t the Islamic Republic of Iran a signatory to the NPT, which guarantees it access to civilian nuclear energy—unlike Israel, which not only has not signed it but has secretly developed nuclear weapons with the help of its Western sponsors, including France? Yes, but what about Iran’s nuclear program! Wasn’t it Hassan Rouhani’s reformist government that signed an agreement with the P5+1, which his country adhered to to the letter until Trump’s United States—followed by its European vassals—tore it up and reimposed sanctions against the Iranian nation? Were these cruel decisions also intended to restore the rights of the Iranian people?

But let’s return to Europe: Are Washington, London, and Paris planning to bomb Poland soon—a country that has openly declared its intention to acquire the bomb—or even Germany, which many suspect of secretly developing a nuclear weapon at this very moment? Or is this yet another case of supremacist exceptionalism, which enjoys special privileges that the law ignores? – One thing seems certain: given the current state of the world, if an anonymous survey were conducted among all UN members asking whether a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to the world, there is a very good chance that the overwhelming global majority would respond: what truly poses a danger to the world today is an Iran without nuclear weapons!

Western public opinion, which media terrorism has turned into a naive teenager, is probably the only one in the world that still believes in fairy tales portraying Europeans as the guardians of universal moral values. It is high time to leave this “fairy-tale” world behind and return to the founding texts: “Take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”