Dr. Pascal Lottaz of Neutrality Studies and I discussed the escalating Israel-Iran war.
Western Double Standards and Normative Collapse
Israel’s June 13, 2025, strike on Iran, framed as a “preemptive” action, raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Under international law, particularly the UN Charter, only acts of self-defense in response to an actual or imminent attack are lawful. Preemptive strikes are narrowly defined and require a truly immediate threat, while preventive strikes, based on future hypothetical risks, are explicitly illegal. Israel's justification—citing Iran’s potential to develop nuclear weapons in one to two years—clearly falls into the preventive category.
The Western response, particularly the G7’s endorsement of Israel’s actions, exemplifies a dangerous double standard. Similar actions by other nations, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, are condemned, yet Israel receives consistent political and moral cover. This selective application of international law erodes global norms and credibility.
Moreover, Israel’s ongoing use of “self-defense” to justify offensive actions mirrors historical Western colonial practices, framed today through a modern, Orwellian distortion of language. The result is the weakening of legal definitions and moral standards, pushing the world closer to a lawless, power-driven order.
To preserve a rules-based international system, violations must be condemned consistently, regardless of the actor. Anything less undermines justice, accountability, and the principles of global peace and security.
Manufacturing Consent for War: The Iran Narrative and Western Strategy
For decades, Western powers have maintained a narrative that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat. From Netanyahu’s repeated warnings since the 1990s to Cold War-era fears dating back to 1984, this rhetoric echoes the false justification for the 2003 Iraq War. Despite repeated claims, no credible intelligence supports the assertion that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Recent testimony from U.S. intelligence, including from Tulsi Gabbard, confirms there is zero evidence of such intentions.
This persistent narrative is not just misinformation—it’s strategic. The goal, critics argue, is to create the conditions necessary for war. Once military actions begin, facts on the ground take over, and any debate is sidelined. The real objective, some suggest, is not peace or democracy, but destabilization—a “scorched earth” policy that fragments adversaries, ensuring Israel's dominance in a chaotic region.
The West's ability to control the public narrative is crucial. By presenting military aggression as "humanitarian intervention," they exploit good intentions to sell destructive wars. As history shows in Iraq and Libya, the result is failed states, mass suffering, and long-term occupation. The current campaign against Iran risks repeating these tragedies on a much larger scale.
Listen to this episode with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to World Affairs in Context to listen to this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.