A few weeks prior to the outbreak of the current war with Iran, I was in Vienna for the first face-to-face meeting of the Iranian-Israeli Peace Forum, a dialogue group established in the wake of the Iranian missile strikes launched in April 2024.  In the shadow of war in June 2025, this group collaborated on the release of a joint statement rejecting military confrontation as the way to resolve the conflict between the two countries. In Vienna, we appeared at a public panel sponsored by the Bruno Kreisky Forum, where our Iranian partners made it clear that while they yearn for regime change, they would not welcome the dispatch of US or Israeli bombers to do the work for them. Their rejection of the “peace through strength” policies of the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government was unequivocal.

The views held by the Iranians were closely aligned with those of the Israeli speakers. We expressed our hope that diplomacy would prevail over preemptive strikes against supposed Iranian threats whose dimensions and immediacy are being inflated in accordance with political expediency. How else can one explain that the Iranian nuclear facilities that were “obliterated” in June 2025 have to be “re-obliterated” in March 2026? How else can one explain that the promise of regime change given to the Iranian protestors in January morphed into negotiations on nuclear capabilities in February and into a war with muddled objectives in March?

Prospects for Regime Change

There is no question that the Iranian people deserve regime change, and with the death of Ayatollah Ali KhameneI, change is certain. What kind of change, however, remains to be seen.

On January 3, we saw President Trump use the war on drugs as a cover for a hostile takeover of the Venezuelan oil industry. Announcing the capture of President Nicolas Maduro, Trump promised the people of Venezuela a “judicious” transition to a life of “peace, liberty, and justice” before he anointed Delcy Rodriguez, Maduro’s deputy, to serve as his proxy. Opposition leader Maria Machado’s embarrassing handover of her Nobel Peace Prize was not enough to convince the narcissistic president that she would do a better job of carrying his water than Rodriguez, and she ended up leaving the White House with nothing more than a swag bag.

As for Iran, after telling the Washington Post that “all I want is freedom for the people,” Trump told the New York Times that he did not rule out applying the Venezuela model to Iran, indicating that once the head of the snake was removed, he might be willing to find a modus operandi with somewhat less venomous vipers as long as they are of his choosing.

Grappling With the Collapse of the Rules-Based Order

The Trump administration is now applying its disdain for the rules-based order and its derisive view of leaders who respect it to its war on Iran, as is painfully evident in the news conferences held by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. This is not and “was never meant to be a fair fight,” he declared, sloughing off the Geneva Conventions without batting an eyelash. Israel is “a good partner,” he declared, because its behavior is “unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls (here Hegseth throws a little misogyny into the mix – SB), hemming and hawing about the use of force.”

The Israeli Government, of course, didn’t need Hegseth’s permission to abandon the Law of Armed Conflict. Its conduct of the Gaza war made it abundantly clear that there is no daylight between Netanyahu and Trump when it comes to their contempt for what Hegseth called “stupid rules of engagement” and “politically correct wars.” In that same spirit, Netanyahu jumped at the excuse given him when Hezbollah opened fire at Israel to start carving out a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, confident that the principle of respect for state sovereignty has been flushed down the toilet.

And where is the international community as all of this is unfolding? The Canadian prime minister, lauded by Policy magazine as “a global rock star” in the wake of his Davos speech, delivered the ultimate lesson in waffling when reacting to the US-Israeli operation. “Prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law,” he said, but added that nonetheless he supports the strikes on Iran “with some regret.” Clear as mud. UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteres issued a toothless call for respect for international law. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen spoke of the need to ensure that the Iranian people get “to claim and shape” their future, as if there is any chance of the EU contesting a new Iranian leader who gets Trump’s blessing. France, Germany, and the UK released a lukewarm statement that skirted the question of the legality of the US-Israeli attacks and contained a pro forma call for a negotiated solution. To date, Spain has stood alone in saying “no to war,” as other European noes are morphing into yes to defensive measures and could yet find Europe embroiled in the expanding war zone.

Challenging Conventional Wisdom in Israel

Meanwhile in Israel, the media is lauding the army’s prowess, the government’s resolve, the people’s steadfastness, and the righteousness of the cause. Aside from the Arab parties, there is unwavering solidarity across the political spectrum, including the Democrats and their leader Yair Golan, who claims to represent the progressive forces. The rhetoric has changed accordingly, and the Israeli death toll is no longer that of people killed but people “murdered.” The diversity of Iranian society is hidden to Israeli viewers, who are exposed only to images of Iranians draped in the Israeli flag, and reports on the progress of the war speak only of launchers, missiles, bombers, and sites, as if there is no human face to the Iranian losses.

This is where the unique contribution of civil society comes into play. In Israel, it is civil society that first reported on the deaths of over 160 in the bombing of a primary school in southern Iran on the first day of the war. It is civil society that is setting up WhatsApp groups and Zoom meetings to coordinate antiwar campaigns. It is civil society that is pointing out the absence of shelters in Bedouin communities. It is civil society that is asking how Gaza has disappeared from our screens. It is civil society that is challenging the dominant view about the need to use B-52s instead of sanctions to cripple the Islamic regime.

Civil Society Pipeline to Decision-Makers

And most importantly, it is civil society that is unfettered by competing interests that are causing liberal leaders around the world to take the path of least resistance vis-à-vis the loose cannon in the Oval Office.  Made up primarily of volunteers, civil society exhibits a purity of conscience that cannot be found in the halls of power. As a result, it is civil society that refuses to accept the death of the rules-based order and is fighting to keep universal values relevant in international relations.

In recent years, civil society activism has breached the limits of people-to-people encounters and protective presence in conflict areas which, important as they are, have little impact on the diplomatic arena. Today, civil society has become the standard-bearer that is fighting to keep morality and justice alive as factors in conflict resolution.  To succeed, it must be given a permanent pipeline that will carry its voice from the corridors into the room where the decisions are made. As world leaders bend this way and back in their attempts to maneuver within the no-holds-barred Trumpian era, it is only civil society that can stop the descent into a new reality where the law of the jungle prevails.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)