Indonesia's Moderately Rational Voice Amid the US–Israel–Iran Conflict

Jakarta (ANTARA) - In the midst of the escalation of the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, as it is unfolding today, Indonesia appears to stand at an awkward point. After all, Indonesia must choose between clinging to morality or clinging to realism.

Our Constitution is clear. The first paragraph of the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution states that colonialism in the world must be abolished. That sentence is not merely an artifact of history but the moral foundation of Indonesia’s foreign policy from the outset.

Yet, the world today is not moved solely by moral calls or official statements, but also by interests. The great powers do not always ask what is fair, but what is advantageous and what is safe for them.

That is where the dilemma arises. Is Indonesia loud enough to condemn every aggression and violations of international law, or must it always weigh carefully to avoid being caught in a vortex that harms national interests?

To be honest, morality and realism do not always go hand in hand. The theory of realism in international relations teaches that states act to survive, to endure.

Hans Morgenthau (1948) placed national interest—defined within the framework of power—as the compass of foreign policy. Morality remains relevant, but for Morgenthau it must be considered realistically so as not to undermine the state’s longevity.

Indonesia itself is not a country born and founded from a cost-benefit calculation. It was born and stands from resistance to colonialism. The anti-colonial identity is not a diplomatic accessory for Indonesia. It is part of Indonesia’s political DNA.

Now, when the US–Israel–Iran conflict heats up, as it is now, for Indonesia what is tested is not merely its diplomatic posture but also the consistency of that anti-colonial stance itself. Is that principle still held when the situation is complex and full of risk?

Surely, when attacks occur against Iran, when civilian casualties occur, the Indonesian public tends to view it entirely through a moral lens. Criticism of the major powers carrying out the attacks is so evident in our public sphere.

But a state cannot move solely in response to public emotion. The state must also consider economic stability, energy security, trade relations, and the region’s strategic position. That is where calculations become inescapable.