Double Standards from All Sides: Lessons from Iran and Ukraine
Combined United States and Israeli military action against Iran, which resulted in the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior Iranian officials, has shaken global politics. Proponents of the intervention have characterised it as a strategic measure to prevent greater nuclear and military threats in the region, even framing it as an effort to create space for the Iranian people to determine their own political future.
Conversely, many nations have condemned it as a violation of territorial sovereignty and international law.
This incident does not stand in isolation. The world continues to grapple with Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, now entering its fifth year. Since 2022, the invasion has sparked prolonged debate about aggression, the principle of sovereignty, and the norm of territorial integrity. Russia has justified its actions on grounds of national security and threats posed by NATO expansion, whilst most other nations have insisted that borders cannot be altered through force.
Two distinct conflicts involving two different blocs of power, yet a similar pattern emerges: international norms are invoked when deemed advantageous but treated flexibly when they become inconvenient.
WIDENING DOUBLE STANDARDS
In the Ukrainian case, the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity have been asserted with considerable force by Western nations. Political, economic, and military support has been provided on the basis that violations of a sovereign state’s territory are unacceptable. This argument rests on clear foundations in the United Nations Charter. Indeed, during a four-year commemoration of the war held in Jakarta on 24 February 2026, jointly organised by the EU Delegation in Indonesia and the Ukrainian Embassy, international legal principles concerning respect for territorial sovereignty were reaffirmed.
However, in the case of Iran, the international response has been far more fragmented. Several regional states and particularly European nations quickly condemned Iran’s military response attacking neighbouring territory. Condemnation of this further escalation is indeed understandable, as Iran’s cross-border retaliatory strikes risked expanding regional conflict.
The problem is that some of these same nations have not demonstrated equivalent condemnation of the initial strikes by the US and Israel that provoked the escalation. When Iran’s response is criticised but the initial action is not evaluated by the same standard, the impression created is one of selective application of norms.
On the other hand, Russia and some nations harshly condemning attacks on Iran also face charges of inconsistency owing to their own position regarding Ukraine. Russia has even used the phrase “planned and unprovoked armed aggression” to criticise the strikes against Iran. Ironically, Russia itself has committed precisely the same act against Ukraine, regardless of its justifications concerning NATO and self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Thus, double standards can no longer be attributed to a single bloc alone. All parties now tend to invoke the ‘sovereignty principle’ when it suits their interests and discard it when it becomes an obstacle to their objectives.
The principal problem with this situation extends beyond political and diplomatic hypocrisy. More alarming is the erosion of trust in the shared rules that have underpinned the stability of the international system and order.
DEMOCRACY AND THE DANGERS OF UNILATERAL JUSTIFICATION
The further argument that strikes against Iran were undertaken to assist its people also merits careful scrutiny. Sympathy for the Iranian society experiencing repression is understandable. However, under international law, the use of military force against another sovereign state in the name of protecting civilians or supporting democracy is not designed to be exercised unilaterally.
Concepts such as the Responsibility to Protect were established in 2005 to ensure that protective measures for citizens of another state possess collective legitimacy through the UN Security Council mechanism. This process, whilst often hostage to political considerations and lengthy, serves as a safeguard preventing moral claims from becoming justifications for unilateral armed force.
If every powerful nation could claim that its interventions aim to assist another state’s population, the distinction between protection and aggression becomes increasingly blurred. Should the US and Israel employ such narratives to justify strikes on Iran, Russia would certainly feel entitled to make similar claims, as it has already done regarding protection of ethnic and Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine. Both claims are equally problematic, and in such circumstances, nations lacking substantial military power or robust defence alliances face significantly greater uncertainty.
INDONESIA’S POSITION AMID UNCERTAINTY
Indonesia has consistently called for respect for international law and the peaceful resolution of disputes. Regarding the Russia-Ukraine war and Middle Eastern tensions, Indonesia has tended to avoid open alignment and adopted a neutral stance emphasising de-escalation.
This approach is rooted in the tradition of independent and active foreign policy designed to preserve autonomy amid great power competition. However, as all blocs increasingly openly apply double standards, the question arises whether such declarative and performative neutrality remains sufficient.
Appeals to respect international law certainly hold normative value, but their influence depends on the consistency of those advancing them. If violations of sovereignty are harshly criticised in one context but assessed more leniently in another, the credibility of such advocacy is fatally weakened. Indonesia must therefore strengthen its commitment to upholding international law consistently, not merely declaring support for it selectively.