Western politics, media bias on US strikes in Iran
The US claimed the goal was to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. These strikes were the first direct American attack in the recent Iran–Israel conflict, which began earlier that month when Israel carried out its own strikes.
Many experts in international law said the American action was illegal. According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force is forbidden unless it is in self-defence after an armed attack or approved by the UN Security Council. In this case, Iran had not attacked the US, and there was no Security Council authorisation. As a result, the strike is widely considered a pre-emptive attack, which is not allowed under international law.
Despite this, Western governments reacted with silence or support. Nato's Secretary-General Mark Rutte claimed the strike did not break international law. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said there was 'no reason to criticise' the US action.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called Iran's nuclear programme a 'grave threat' and supported the strikes, even though the UK had no direct role. Only French President Emmanuel Macron said the strikes were illegal, but he still agreed with the idea that Iran's programme must be stopped.
This is an example of the West applying double standards. When Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, Western leaders loudly defended international law and national sovereignty. But when the US ignores those same rules, many of these leaders remain silent. The law is treated as flexible depending on who is breaking it. This weakens the idea of justice and fairness in global politics.
The Western media also showed bias. In the United States, newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post called the strikes 'necessary' and 'inevitable'. They focused more on technical damage than legal or moral questions. They repeated President Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear programme was 'obliterated', even though later intelligence reports showed the damage only delayed the programme by a few months.
CNN, another major US network, highlighted Nato's defence of the strike, but gave very little space to international law experts who disagreed. Most American media avoided discussing whether the action was legal. They mostly supported the US government's version of the story.
In Europe, some outlets like the BBC and Politico.eu gave more attention to legal issues. They reported Macron's concerns and included intelligence that questioned US claims. But even they often accepted the wider Western view that Iran is a dangerous state and that stopping its nuclear development is justified - even if the method is illegal.
There is another issue often forgotten in these reports: Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). At the time of the strikes, the IAEA had not confirmed Iran was building nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel has never joined the NPT and is believed to possess nuclear weapons. This important detail is almost never mentioned in Western coverage.
The result is a picture that always shows Iran as a threat and Israel or the US as protectors. This is not balanced journalism. It helps to justify military actions and hides the legal and human consequences.
Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan once said, 'If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must apply equally to all.' Today, that rule seems weak. Powerful countries are allowed to act outside the law, while weaker nations are judged more harshly. This harms the credibility of international law and may lead to more conflicts in the future.
If the international community wants peace and justice, it must return to fairness. Law should not change based on politics. Media should question every government equally. And strikes like the one on Iran must be judged by the same rules we apply to others. Without this, the law becomes just another weapon for the strong.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Nuclear proliferation cannot be bombed away
In 1966, the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France and China not only were the only countries that possessed nuclear weapons, they also had enough wisdom to recognise the dangers posed by nuclear proliferation. Despite their many and deep political differences, they arrived at a consensus to halt the further dissemination of 'nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices'. Under the resulting 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), non-nuclear states agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on all their nuclear activities. In return, the five nuclear states committed to negotiate 'in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race ... and to nuclear disarmament'. With 191 signatories, the treaty is the most widely adopted international agreement after the United Nations Charter. The only countries not to adhere to it were India, Pakistan and Israel. Each went on to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea, which initially joined the treaty, later withdrew to build its own nuclear arsenal. The five original nuclear states did not keep their end of the bargain regarding disarmament. On the contrary, they have been using AI and other technologies to modernise their arsenals. The world's nuclear warheads total more than 12,000 and have become the pre-eminent sign of a country's power and prestige. Just listen to Russia's leaders. Throughout its war in Ukraine, Russia has brandished its nuclear arsenal as a badge of invincibility. It knows that the risk of a nuclear holocaust will deter all other powers from challenging the country directly. Similarly, because North Korea has armed itself with nuclear weapons, the US has taken a softer approach in dealing with it — relying on diplomacy and economic incentives. Learn more By contrast, in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi agreed to abandon his nascent nuclear programme and ended up dead following a Nato aerial campaign against his regime. Worse, there is now only one nuclear arms control treaty between Russia and the US; and it is due to expire next February. The most powerful deterrent for any state is possession of nuclear weapons or membership in an alliance that offers a nuclear umbrella (like Nato). Around 30 states either have nuclear weapons or enjoy such protection. The rest of the world, meanwhile, must hope that the nuclear powers remain on their best behaviour. The situation is especially fraught in the Middle East, a region plagued by wars, violence, instability and a lack of comprehensive security arrangements. Add the fact that Israel is the only state in the region known to have nuclear weapons and you have the makings for chronic insecurity. The wild card, of course, has been Iran. It has endured violence and tumult since the 1950s, when a US- and British-organised coup ousted the country's first democratically elected government. In the 1980s, Iraq attacked Iran with the support of Western powers and neighbouring countries determined to crush its fledgling Islamist regime. Following eight years of brutal violence, with Iraq deploying chemical weapons extensively, the Islamic Republic came to the predictable conclusion that it needs to master nuclear-weapons technology. After a period of sanctions, then US president Barack Obama decided to pursue diplomacy. The idea was to use economic incentives and various technical measures to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and pressure it to reveal its past undeclared nuclear activities. These were the main features of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council — China, Russia, France, Britain and the US — plus Germany and the EU signed in 2015. This framework was functioning as intended, with full compliance by Iran, until US president Donald Trump abruptly withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018. Arguing that the plan of action was only a stopgap measure, Trump insisted on a deal that would control not only Iran's nuclear programme but also its 'disruptive' activities in the Middle East — including its support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Ansar Allah in Yemen. As a result, Iran refused to implement some of the plan of action's key inspection measures and started to enrich uranium to a level approaching weapons-grade. When Trump returned to the White House this year, he demanded that Iran 'surrender' its right to enrichment altogether. Following a few rounds of desultory talks between the US and Iran, Israel and the US — lacking credible evidence of a nuclear-weapons programme — launched their illegal attack against Iranian nuclear and military targets. The ostensible aim was to destroy all of Iran's nuclear fuel-cycle facilities, though there have also been murmurings about triggering regime change in Iran. This is a stark reminder of the rationale for the similarly illegal military interventions in Iraq and Libya. The root cause of nuclear proliferation is a state's sense of insecurity or aspiration to increase its power and influence. Iran's focus on nuclear capability stems from a yearning to prevent foreign interference, a sensitivity to the region's security imbalance and a desire to be recognised as a regional power. The only solution to Middle East nuclear proliferation is to engage in dialogue based on mutual respect, meaningful security assurances (which can be achieved through stringent technical and inspection protocols) and economic incentives (be it the threat of sanctions or a promise to lift them). Since knowledge cannot be 'obliterated', bombing your way to a deal will invariably prove counter-productive. It simply threatens to bring our world one step closer to nuclear Armageddon. Copyright Project Syndicate, 2025
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Western politics, media bias on US strikes in Iran
On June 22, 2025, the United States launched a military operation called 'Midnight Hammer' against three nuclear facilities in Iran: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. The US claimed the goal was to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. These strikes were the first direct American attack in the recent Iran–Israel conflict, which began earlier that month when Israel carried out its own strikes. Many experts in international law said the American action was illegal. According to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the use of force is forbidden unless it is in self-defence after an armed attack or approved by the UN Security Council. In this case, Iran had not attacked the US, and there was no Security Council authorisation. As a result, the strike is widely considered a pre-emptive attack, which is not allowed under international law. Despite this, Western governments reacted with silence or support. Nato's Secretary-General Mark Rutte claimed the strike did not break international law. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said there was 'no reason to criticise' the US action. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer called Iran's nuclear programme a 'grave threat' and supported the strikes, even though the UK had no direct role. Only French President Emmanuel Macron said the strikes were illegal, but he still agreed with the idea that Iran's programme must be stopped. This is an example of the West applying double standards. When Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022, Western leaders loudly defended international law and national sovereignty. But when the US ignores those same rules, many of these leaders remain silent. The law is treated as flexible depending on who is breaking it. This weakens the idea of justice and fairness in global politics. The Western media also showed bias. In the United States, newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post called the strikes 'necessary' and 'inevitable'. They focused more on technical damage than legal or moral questions. They repeated President Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear programme was 'obliterated', even though later intelligence reports showed the damage only delayed the programme by a few months. CNN, another major US network, highlighted Nato's defence of the strike, but gave very little space to international law experts who disagreed. Most American media avoided discussing whether the action was legal. They mostly supported the US government's version of the story. In Europe, some outlets like the BBC and gave more attention to legal issues. They reported Macron's concerns and included intelligence that questioned US claims. But even they often accepted the wider Western view that Iran is a dangerous state and that stopping its nuclear development is justified - even if the method is illegal. There is another issue often forgotten in these reports: Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and remains under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). At the time of the strikes, the IAEA had not confirmed Iran was building nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel has never joined the NPT and is believed to possess nuclear weapons. This important detail is almost never mentioned in Western coverage. The result is a picture that always shows Iran as a threat and Israel or the US as protectors. This is not balanced journalism. It helps to justify military actions and hides the legal and human consequences. Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan once said, 'If the rule of law is to mean anything, it must apply equally to all.' Today, that rule seems weak. Powerful countries are allowed to act outside the law, while weaker nations are judged more harshly. This harms the credibility of international law and may lead to more conflicts in the future. If the international community wants peace and justice, it must return to fairness. Law should not change based on politics. Media should question every government equally. And strikes like the one on Iran must be judged by the same rules we apply to others. Without this, the law becomes just another weapon for the strong.
Muscat Daily
a day ago
- Muscat Daily
How Middle East instability could influence African nations
Berlin, Germany – European analysts worry conflict in the Middle East could be a destabilising factor in already volatile regions of the African continent. 'If the conflict between Israel and Iran escalates further, there is a risk that the various interconnected wars around the Red Sea could also expand,' Hendrik Maihack, of the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES), told DW. He says the greatest danger would be to the Horn of Africa, a region 'currently in its deepest crisis in nearly 30 years'. 'Iran cooperates with the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who in turn also collaborate with the Al-Shabab militia in Somalia,' Maihack says, adding such interconnected alliances are the reason Germany and Europe must look beyond the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine. With conflicts across Africa 'rather increasing than decreasing' – there could be consequences for Europe. 'Where foreign policy attention and resources for humanitarian and development cooperation diminish, many African countries fear falling further out of the spotlight of Western support,' Maihack says. Guido Lanfranchi from the Clingendael Institute for International Relations in the Netherlands told DW the cooperation between the military Houthi group, supported by Iran, and the Al-Shabab militias in Somalia has intensified. 'Maintaining these connections appears to be in the interest of both groups,' the conflict analyst says, but adds it is uncertain to what extent Iran can continue supporting the Houthis. Strategic importance The Horn of Africa and Red Sea regions, which include Egypt, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia are geo-strategically important to both Iran and Israel, Lanfranchi says, with Iran recently supplying weapons to the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF). 'Israel maintains close relations with Ethiopia, and in the last few months alone there have been several meetings at ministerial level between the two sides,' Lanfranchi says. While Israel's role in Sudan is not entirely clear, Lanfranchi says Israel had relations with both the SAF and the RSF (Rapid Support Forces) factions before the Sudanese civil war broke out in April 2023. But according to Romane Dideberg of the London-based think tank Chatham House, Iran and Israel's limited economic and diplomatic overall footprint in Africa so far means the fallout from the Iran-Israel conflict is currently 'mainly indirect geopolitical effects'. 'Both countries have invested very little in Africa and don't really have an Africa strategy like similar players in the region,' she told DW. These effects include potential disruption to trade, increased market instability, rising oil prices, and growing economic pressure. Neverthelss, Dideberg says, energy prices could still skyrocket, and with international political and military attention now focused elsewhere, 'security gaps' on the continent could emerge. Other Middle East players, however, have vested interested in certain African nations. 'Qatar has played a very active role in mediating in various African countries in recent years and most recently played a leading role in the regional mediation efforts between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo,' Dideberg tells DW. But following an Iranian attack on a United States airbase in Qatar, further threats to Qatar could now follow: 'So if they are attacked directly, that could diminish their role. They provided this quiet diplomacy and support in the background, while all other diplomatic channels failed.' Qatar managed to bring Rwandan President Paul Kagame and Felix Tshisekedi, President of the DRC, to the negotiating table in early 2025, after the two leaders avoided each other for months amid escalating violence in the eastern DRC bordering Rwanda. In West Africa, Iran has invested in the Sahel countries, says Ulf Laessing of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation (KAS) in Mali. Iran has tried to provide an alternative to European partners, such as France. 'For example, an agreement was concluded with Niger, which is officially about energy cooperation,' Laessing told DW. Despite alleged military deals in exchange for access to resources, Laessing says the Israel-Iran conflict has taken away Iran's capacity to be a player in West Africa. Military-ruled Sahel countries ruled could therefore receive less support, such as for drone purchases, than previously hoped. DW
