Germany's leadership once described Israel's fight against Iran as the world's 'dirty work,' arguing that the Iranian regime had spread death and destruction far beyond its borders. Now, as the conflict deepens and the Strait of Hormuz faces disruption, Berlin has declined to support calls from the United States to help secure the vital waterway, insisting that the war is not Germany's responsibility and was not coordinated with its government.

Other allies, including Japan, Australia, and the United Kingdom, have also hesitated to contribute naval support, despite their heavy reliance on energy supplies that pass through the strait. The editorial argues that this reluctance exposes a contradiction: nations that depend most on global stability are unwilling to defend it when confronted with escalating threats.

According to the piece, the conflict is aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and expanding its ballistic missile arsenal, as well as curbing its support for militant proxies. Framed this way, the war is presented not as optional but as a response to long-standing dangers that now carry immediate global consequences.

While criticizing the confrontational tone of the American president, the editorial contends that his core argument is valid. If a regime accused of sponsoring terrorism and advancing toward nuclear capability is not considered a shared threat, it asks, then it is unclear what kind of crisis would justify collective action.