In an interview, a Czech expert highlights the contradiction in international responses to acts of aggression, specifically focusing on the recent military actions taken by the United States and Israel against Iran without the approval of the UN Security Council. The expert questions the legality of these actions under international law, noting that the current framework prohibits the use of force with only two exceptions: actions sanctioned by the UN or those based on self-defense. Since neither the U.S. nor Israel has claimed a UN mandate for their actions, the justification of 'preventive self-defense' comes under scrutiny.

The discussion draws parallels between the U.S. and Israeli actions and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, raising important questions about the implications for Europe and the broader global order. The expert warns that the West risks undermining its moral and legal standing by simultaneously condemning one act of aggression while supporting another, emphasizing that this inconsistency could have detrimental effects on international relations, particularly for Europe and Czechia.

Furthermore, the expert points to the potential consequences of military interventions on the lives of civilians in the targeted countries, questioning whether such actions actually contribute to their improvement. They argue that if Iran has a right to defend itself, then the current aggressor approach could lead to broader conflicts, challenging the established norms of state behavior and international law.