The metaphor in the headline belongs to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Arakchi: "It is sad to see the Munich Security Conference, which is usually a serious event, turn into the Munich Circus when it comes to Iran."

Why? Because they invited Reza Pahlavi, who wants to re-establish the Shah regime in Iran with US support, to the Munich Security Conference as "Iran's new hope". Pahlavi organised a rally in Munich with "regime opponents" sponsored by the US and Israel. US Senator Lindsey Graham waved the Iranian flag from the podium, the flag of the Shah era. The US and Israeli flags accompanied the Shah flags at the rally. 

In short, by turning the Munich Security Conference into an anti-Iran platform, Germany gave Israel yet another boost.

The flaw in the liberal argument

The argument of political liberals is this: "The US should strike Iran because there is no democracy in Iran, there is a mullah regime." 

This argument is flawed from top to bottom. Firstly, whether or not there is democracy in Iran does not give another country the right to attack it. The ability of one country to wage war on another because it "dislikes" its regime means disregarding the "sovereignty" rights of states and returning to the Middle Ages. 

Secondly, what is the measure of democracy? Is democracy limited to US-centred "liberal democracy"? Furthermore, if the issue is truly democracy, why is the US friendly towards monarchies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates but hostile towards Iran? Come on... 

The issue is not the regime

The reason the US is targeting Iran is neither a lack of democracy nor the mullah regime. If Iran were to align with US interests, Washington would happily walk hand in hand with the mullah regime. The US wants to strike Iran not because it is ruled by a mullah regime, but because it opposes the US. 

The US is promoting Reza Pahlavi, the son of the last Shah, as an alternative to the mullah regime. But is the Shah regime an alternative to the mullah regime? Does the "enfeoffment" of the country's land and people to a family comply with the political liberals' measure of democracy?

For the US, the issue is neither the mullah regime nor the Shah regime. The US supports any regime that aligns with its interests and opposes even the most democratic country if it does not align with its interests. 

Iran is already an example. In 1953, there was no mullah regime, and the US and Britain overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in a coup. Why? Because Prime Minister Mossadegh had nationalised Iranian oil, which was controlled by BP.

So the issue is neither the regime nor democracy; the issue is imperialist interests.

Washington targets the UN

Speaking of the circus... 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said at the Munich Security Conference: "The UN still has tremendous potential for good in the world, but it cannot play a role in matters that require pressure. They couldn't resolve the war in Gaza. It was the US that secured the fragile ceasefire." (Source: AA, 14.2.2026)

Unbelievable! The US Secretary of State is criticising the UN for failing to stop the war in Gaza!  

Could US Secretary of State Rubio be unaware that his own country vetoed numerous UN initiatives aimed at stopping Israel's genocide in Gaza? Of course he knows!

The real trick here is this: the Trump administration has effectively taken a stand against the UN system. Trump withdrew the US from dozens of UN agencies by presidential decree. They even aimed to make the Peace Council established for Gaza an "alternative UN," but fortunately, most of the countries they invited rejected the offer.

If the UN system is still functioning today, it is due to the stance of China and Russia in the UN Security Council. However, it is clear that the UN will be the scene of more intense clashes in the coming period.