Does a state being oppressive give other states permission to wage war against it?
Does opposition to a regime require remaining silent while innocent people are bombed?
The war launched by the US and Israel against Iran is not merely a regional military conflict. In its first week, this war transformed into a global upheaval affecting the entire world through civilian deaths, forced displacement, energy crises, legal debates, and global instability. The war will impact not only the bombed territories but also laboratories, university budgets, research funding, transportation, and daily life. One of the first noticeable consequences in Europe was the rise in oil and energy prices. Goldman Sachs warned that if the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz continues, prices could rise above $100 (https://www.ft.com/content/d3e2c2a1-73aa-4952-b1f1-08c87042b507).
The fact that a state is oppressive does not give other states permission to wage war against it. As academics, we cannot view this situation solely from the perspective of geopolitical competition. Just as we opposed Russia’s attack on Ukraine, and just as we spoke out against the mass destruction and grave human rights violations in Gaza, we must evaluate the attack on Iran, carried out under the pretext of a “nuclear threat,” with the same ethical standards. Otherwise, the academy’s claim to universality collapses, and principles give way to camp loyalty. An intellectual discourse that remains silent when the perpetrator of an attack changes actually follows power, not law.
Some of the international reactions to this war are as follows: UN Secretary-General António Guterres said that the use of force by the US and Israel against Iran and the subsequent retaliations weaken international peace and security. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk also emphasized that bombs and missiles are not a way to resolve conflicts, and that civilians are once again paying the price (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/global-reaction-israeli-us-attacks-iran-2026-02-28/).
The legal dimension of war is as important as its ethical dimension. According to a Reuters legal analysis, although the Trump administration defended the attacks on the grounds of “imminent threat,” these claims are not supported. Legal experts state that these attacks are seriously controversial under both international law and US domestic law (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/are-us-attacks-iran-legal-2026-03-04/). Another Reuters assessment notes that the attacks push the limits of the US president’s constitutional authority (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-switch-are-attacks-iran-legal-2026-03-06/).
It is noteworthy that, as often happens, war first corrupts the language: expressions such as “preventive strike,” “regime change,” and “destruction for stability” aim to legitimize power beyond the law. Therefore, the task of academia should be to continue defending the language of truth against politics that empties concepts of meaning.
Spain has emerged as a remarkable exception in Europe in this regard. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez declared “no to war,” announcing that his country would not be complicit in this catastrophe. Sánchez called for an immediate de-escalation of tensions and full respect for international law. According to El País, Sánchez stated that violence is not the solution and that considering blind obedience as leadership is the real naivety. While more hesitant language is used in Europe, Spain’s open stance shows that principled foreign policy is still possible (https://english.elpais.com/international/2026-03-04/pedro-sanchez-on-the-us-and-israeli-attack-on-iran-no-to-war-we-will-not-support-this-disaster.html).
Spain is not alone in opposing the war. Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide stated that the attack was not in accordance with international law. The President of Ireland also called for diplomacy, describing the normalization of arbitrary occupation of sovereign states as a path to destruction (https://president.ie/en/media-library/news-releases/statement-by-president-connolly-following-strikes-on-iran). The Omani Foreign Minister stated that the negotiations mediated by his country had been sabotaged again, sending a message to Washington: “This is not your war.” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi found the US and Israeli attacks “unacceptable” and called for an immediate ceasefire. Brazil also said the attacks undermined the negotiation process and that dialogue was the only way to peace (https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/global-reaction-israeli-us-attacks-iran-2026-02-28/).
In contrast, the European Union’s common stance appears far more cautious and fragmented. While most EU countries call for “maximum restraint” and respect for international law, they also strongly condemn Iran’s attacks (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/eu-nations-call-maximum-restraint-respect-international-law-iran-conflict-2026-03-01/). This balanced crisis language reveals that states often speak not in terms of principles but in terms of alliances and cost calculations. Therefore, the voice of universities, researchers, and intellectuals becomes more valuable. Where states remain silent or hesitant, academia must establish a moral language that does not change according to nationality in the face of human life.
The impact of war on academia is both direct and indirect. The surge in energy prices will put pressure on transportation and logistics costs, the security of academic conferences, international student mobility, scholarship programs, and the funding of research infrastructure. The disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and their economic consequences are not merely economic data for scientists, but a sign of how war paralyzes the knowledge-producing ecosystem. Universities do not remain neutral islands when war breaks out; they either succumb to pressure or stand on the side of truth and human life.
Here, it is necessary to recall the concept of “academic responsibility.” The academic’s duty is not only to produce data, but also to protect public opinion. To remain silent in the face of a language that reduces bombed cities to maps, deaths to statistics, and displacement to “security outcomes” is to sacrifice academic ethics for political comfort. Especially in times of war, universities risk becoming propaganda tools. Yet history has bequeathed to us the legacy of intellectuals who paid the price for injustice.
Throughout history, numerous academics, students, and intellectuals have stood against oppression at the cost of their lives. Sophie Scholl and the students around the White Rose at the University of Munich were executed in 1943 for distributing leaflets against Nazi crimes. Janusz Korczak, an educator and child rights advocate, refused to abandon his orphans in the Warsaw Ghetto and was sent to Treblinka with them and killed. In El Salvador, philosopher and university rector Ignacio Ellacuría was murdered for criticizing state violence and human rights violations. These examples show that the true honor of academia lies not in career but in the courage to speak the truth in the face of power (https://www.britannica.com/topic/White-Rose).
This is what is needed today regarding Iran. Legitimate criticism of the Iranian regime cannot be used to legitimize external aggression. A state’s oppression does not give other states a license to wage war against it. Similarly, opposition to a regime does not require remaining silent while its cities are bombed. Academic consistency requires both opposition to authoritarian regimes and rejection of external aggression. Human rights are not merely a discourse used against rival blocs.
Following the attacks on Iran, universities and academic networks are facing the consequences of a new era of war. Academic solidarity must stand firm on principles, regardless of nationality or bloc: the lives of civilians are superior to geopolitical calculations; war is the language of power, not truth; universities must not surrender to this language. We must use the same moral language for Iran today that we used when Russia attacked Ukraine, when Gaza was destroyed, and when sovereignty violations occurred in other regions. Because if the conscience of academia becomes selective, it ceases to be a conscience. What is needed today is not to side with the powerful, but to insist on the side of law, peace, and human life.
