An hour of apocalypse, neatly portioned: From Tehran to Cologne – everything's burning, as long as it's all under control.

It's Wednesday, March 4, 2026, and somewhere between the Iran war, EU treaties, and fertility fairs, a radio program bravely attempts to make sense of the world. It succeeds about as well as an IKEA shelf without instructions: you can sort of put it together, but in the end, there's always a piece left over. On Kontrafunk , Stefan Milius expertly moderates the hour's topics and delivers the warm-up right at the start: an advertisement from the Leonhardkreis, politically and religiously neutral, of course. Neutral like a jackhammer claiming to only provide a "light wellness massage."

Because when "freedom of speech becomes a luxury" because "global elites" decide what we're allowed to think, then we need courageous citizens. What's particularly courageous here is that one can still say these sentences in a serious tone without bursting out laughing. But fine: supporting membership, link, back to the program. The world is on fire, and we're starting with sponsorship. Order must prevail.

War in Iran: Decapitation, martyrdom, and the art of not celebrating too soon
Then comes the main course: the US and Israeli military strikes against targets in Iran. The question: Will it remain local, or will it spread? Milius discusses this with Ralph Bosshard, a retired lieutenant colonel on the General Staff of the Swiss Army. A man who at least possesses the right tools: skepticism, experience, and the unfortunate ability to avoid immediately turning things into celebratory pronouncements.

Bosshard's main point: Anyone already proclaiming the "end of the system" could soon be embarrassed. The Iranian system is in a test run; the constitution is functioning so far, and succession arrangements are apparently in place. And particularly noteworthy: Even the potential death of the supreme leader could be factored into the system's logic. Martyrdom carries weight in Shiite tradition, and such a death would not only be a political event but also a religious trigger with repercussions from Baghdad to India. In short: It's far too early to start the confetti cannon. This is uncomfortable, but realistic. And realism, as we know, is precisely what political talk shows prefer to gloss over.

What will determine whether Iran implodes or explodes outwardly? Bosshard remains level-headed: The state of the security apparatus is unclear, and the conflict is only just beginning. At the same time, Shiite networks in the region are evidently prepared to intervene on Iran's behalf. Iraq, Lebanon, possibly Bahrain, Azerbaijan: The potential for escalation is there. Interestingly, Iranian counterstrikes on symbolic targets like Dubai are conceived less as military than as communicative. The goal is to have an impact in the information space. Physically manageable, psychologically maximal.

And then there are the big players: Russia speaks of cynical murder, China warns of violent regime change. Bosshard argues that China must now take a stand, because Iranian oil exports are crucial for Beijing, and bombs dropped on Tehran would also affect Beijing. Moreover, many BRICS-Plus countries see this as a test of whether "one of their own" will be abandoned. This is the kind of statement that Europe prefers to ignore until it explodes on its own doorstep.

Bosshard offers a rare gem of diplomatic satire on Europe's role: the Europeans have called on the "victim of aggression" to exercise restraint. A peculiar, yet not atypical, approach. France and Great Britain, forced to demonstrate strength due to their own attacks, are backpedaling after issuing strong words. The aim is to condemn Israel in Gaza, while simultaneously avoiding antagonizing the US, reassuring the Gulf states, and somehow remaining "relevant." This isn't foreign policy; it's walking a tightrope in a storm.

And the duration? Trump speaks of four to five weeks or "as long as necessary." Bosshard doesn't trust this figure. Ammunition stockpiles and endurance are secrets, and quantitative comparisons without quality are useless. Furthermore, if the US has to withdraw air defense systems from Korea after just a few days, it looks less like "full control" and more like "oops, that went faster than expected."

EU treaties: Those who read will find what they're looking for. Those who don't read will find empty phrases.
Next up is Switzerland and the EU: A new agreement has been signed, with the people to decide later. Entrepreneur Giorgio Behr (professor emeritus, entrepreneur) explains his opposition. His first argument is so simple it's almost subversive: One should read contracts. He has. Thousands of pages, including old agreements from 1999, because the Federal Council failed to indicate what was changing. And as a bonus: The English and German versions sometimes don't match perfectly. When the language in a contract alters reality, it's no longer a translation error; it's a warning sign with a neon sign.

Behr focuses on three areas: technical barriers to trade (mutual recognition), the free movement of persons, and electricity. He debunks the economic rhetoric: industry accounts for roughly 23% of GDP, pharmaceuticals aren't even part of this recognition logic, and suppliers are often exempt from approvals. Many companies use EU approvals anyway because they're cheaper. And the best part: even if an agreement is terminated, existing approvals remain valid according to Article 20. The apocalyptic "No new agreements, no more approvals" thus sounds about as credible as "Without this update, your smartphone will explode."

Regarding the free movement of persons, Behr criticizes the fact that highly qualified graduates from third countries have to leave after six months, while immigration from the EU is handled differently. He also sees the new package as expanding non-working immigration and creating potential for abuse, ultimately generating more bureaucracy. His conclusion: regulated relations, yes, but the package is not essential. Switzerland can live very well with the status quo. The tone is less "revolution" than "please think about it for a moment."

Away with archaeology: contemporary pedagogy instead of long-term thinking.
Then came Thomas Hartung's commentary: An archaeological institute in Berlin is slated for closure. For Hartung, this isn't about cost-cutting, but rather a process of de-canonization. Archaeology, classical philology, and ancient history, he argues, impart a long-term perspective, the understanding that civilizations rise and fall. In parallel, the world of "attitude-based disciplines" is growing: gender studies, diversity management, and transformation studies. The accusation: not a search for truth, but rather the shaping of consciousness; not open questions, but fixed answers. The university is becoming a supplier of political agendas, scholarship is reduced to project work, and criticism to mere sensitization. And archaeology, he asserts, is the opposite: slow, focused, not easily "ticked," not suited to activism. A world in which "Critical Witness Studies" triumphs over the Acropolis.

One can argue about it, but the point is clear: when a society erodes its historical memory, it becomes surprisingly malleable. And malleability, as we hear, is a market of the future.

Fertility fair: A case of wine or a baby in the package?
Finally, the moral bombshell: "Wish for a Baby" in Berlin and Cologne. Surrogacy is illegal in Germany, but a business practiced abroad. Monika Glöcklhofer from the women's rights organization Frauenheldinnen intends to take legal action against the fair. Her argument: The fair not only provides information but also facilitates transactions. Initial consultations take place, followed later by offers: "64,000 euros for a surrogate mother, child in Mexico," more expensive in the USA, where sex selection and multiple "attempts" are included. This doesn't sound like medical ethics; it sounds like product configuration.

Glöcklhofer emphasizes the class issue: Rich people "buy" the bodies of poor women; contracts are complex, often incomprehensible, cesarean section, child lost, rights relinquished. Egg donation is also not a harmless "donation," but hormonally and medically risky. Her central tenet: There is no right to a child. This is harsh, especially for couples with an unfulfilled desire. But precisely this harshness is meant to highlight the point: A desire does not automatically justify a system that turns other people into mere means to an end.

Their legal leverage is interesting: Taking direct action against the trade fair is virtually impossible, so they would have to target the city for its supervisory duties. This claim was rejected, allegedly because they lacked standing to sue. Next step: a lawsuit with a woman they specifically recruited. The goal: to ban the trade fair. Italy has already banned such events, and there is political support from hundreds of organizations worldwide.

Conclusion: An hour of apocalyptic apocalypse, neatly portioned
Kontrafunk delivers the complete menu of our times in a single Wednesday: war, treaties, academic wrecking balls, and the global business of fertility. They also point out that freedom of speech is a luxury, but supporting memberships help. It's all there. You could laugh if it weren't so plausible.

And that's precisely what's so unpleasant: the absurd has long since become normalized. We've grown accustomed to geopolitical escalations being discussed like weather reports, to contracts being signed that hardly anyone reads, and to the fact that you could theoretically "have a child" as an option at a trade fair. Modernity, it seems, is just another word for: "We'll do it because we can."

Geopolitical consequences of the Iran war, EU treaties for Switzerland? Should it be permissible to "buy" children?