Highlighting Indonesia's Ambition to Be Mediator in the US–Israel–Iran Standoff
The Middle East region has again fallen into turbulence following attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran. US President Donald Trump described the operation as ‘Epic Fury’, which reportedly killed senior Iranian figures, including Ali Hosseini Khamenei.
Israel’s Defence Minister Katz said the strike was a preventive decision by Israel to ‘eliminate the threat’. Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed a similar view, though neither explained what threat was meant or how urgent the threat was to justify the attack.
Relations among the three states have deteriorated since the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. The US and Israel have often accused Iran of developing a deadly weapon—nuclear bombs. Iran has denied these claims on numerous occasions.
In response to the attacks, Iran launched missiles at Tel Aviv and other strategic sites in Israel. Separately, Iran also attacked US military bases in the Middle East, such as in Iraq, Bahrain, the UAE, and Kuwait.
They have also disrupted maritime trade routes through the Strait of Hormuz, linking the Middle East with Europe. Consequently, this is expected to have a major impact on global oil prices.
Through an official statement, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto offered to mediate to defuse tensions and resolve the dispute among the three parties. The move is not realistic, and Indonesia would need a more self-aware stance in foreign policy.
“Indonesia is a big country.” This phrase is often used by academics to emphasise Indonesia’s economic influence—evidenced by joining the G20—in global diplomacy.
Moreover, Indonesia has a large population and is believed to boast a large market for investors. Its geography is comparable to Mexico and several European countries combined.
Yet these facts are not entirely accurate. Offering to serve as a peacemaker is not new for Indonesia. In a previous era, President Joko Widodo offered to broker Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but the offer was not responded to. Consequently, based on experiences of prior administrations, the proposal by President Prabowo does not make sense.
First, Indonesia does not yet wield substantial political and economic influence. Historically, Indonesian diplomats did engage at the UN to argue over maritime boundaries, culminating in UNCLOS 1982. However, such political influence did not endure long or remain consistent.
Indonesia’s foreign policy has been described as pro-peace, for example by deploying the Garuda Contingent to Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. The contingent has been popular and active in building stability in conflict regions.
In the Cold War era, Indonesia joined the Non-Aligned Movement to declare that it was not part of either the Soviet or US blocs. Indonesia also formed ASEAN as a coordinating body for Southeast Asian nations in the economic, political, and socio-cultural sectors. These steps were realistic, not the mark of a ‘big country’ intervening in the global contest between powerful states.
Nevertheless, President Prabowo has made political maneuvers. He deliberately joined the Board of Peace (BoP), an initiative from President Trump to stabilise the Palestinian region. The decision is not rational.
Besides not involving the Palestinians in Davos signing, Indonesia would also spend billions of rupiah to send peacekeeping troops to conflict zones. Prabowo’s move has caused public unrest, as Indonesia would sit at the negotiating table with Israel. This is further compounded by Israeli companies’ involvement in geothermal projects in North Maluku.
Beyond that, Indonesia’s interests, besides ‘considering’ the Palestinian region, include reductions in US import tariffs on Indonesia by 19% from 32%. The agreement is not entirely beneficial for Indonesia.
Products exported to the US, such as footwear, palm oil, and rubber, face tariffs of 19%, while US products, especially aircraft parts and pharmaceuticals, face 0% tariffs. Indonesia also has obligations to purchase energy and agricultural products in large quantities, which adds to budgetary pressures in those sectors.
Rather than becoming a peacemaker through BoP, Indonesia’s presence at the forum is viewed as resembling an ‘alliance’ with Trump. Some Indonesian academics warned President Prabowo before Davos, but the warnings were not heeded.
Herman Dirgantara, a legal and political researcher from Gajah Mada Analitika, argues that Indonesia should recover the essence of the policy of non-alignment by taking concrete steps through multilateral diplomacy based on international law as outlined by the UN.
PARA Syndicate Executive Researcher, Virdika Rizky Utama, also argues that Indonesia has long been comfortable in the grey area, but the word ‘alliance’ listed on the US site has narrowed that space by placing Indonesia in a bloc.
With these reasons, Indonesia does not have the capacity to…