Rules for Thee, But Not for Me: Western Hyprocrisy with Iran and Israel

Introduction

The Western designation of Iran as a “rogue state” is often framed as a neutral classification of a nation engaging in uniquely threatening behavior. However, this framing collapses under scrutiny. The term functions not as an objective analysis but as a political instrument to marginalize states that resist alignment with the US-led international order. By juxtaposing Iran’s actions with those of the United States and its key Middle Eastern ally, Israel, the profound contradictions in this narrative become undeniable. The label “rogue state” is not a reflection of exceptional danger but a rhetorical device used to legitimize punitive measures against geopolitical adversaries. When analyzed through the lenses of nuclear proliferation, adherence to international law, and respect for state sovereignty, the hypocrisy underlying this designation exposes the “rules-based order” as a mechanism of asymmetric power enforcement.

The Framing of the Post-Soviet Boogeyman

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 left the United States without a clear global adversary, creating what scholars describe as a “threat vacuum” in its strategic posture. The American foreign policy establishment depends on external threats to justify sustained military spending and global influence. This need led it to replace the Soviet menace with new targets. Iran was a post-revolutionary state with a declared anti-imperialist ideology and strategic significance in the oil-rich Middle East, which made it an ideal candidate for this role. From a realist perspective—a framework emphasizing power dynamics over moral absolutism—the US redefined global politics to serve its post-Cold War ambitions. The “rogue state” doctrine transformed complex geopolitical tensions into a simplified moral fable of good versus evil, cementing Iran’s identity as the West’s villainous other.

The Double Standard in International Norms

Nuclear Proliferation and the Illusion of Accountability

Western powers frequently cite Iran’s nuclear program as evidence of its “rogue” status. Yet, this program operates under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is subjected to rigorous International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. This oversight starkly contrasts with Israel’s clandestine nuclear arsenal. Estimated to include over 100 warheads, it was developed outside the NPT framework and remains shielded from international scrutiny. While the United Nations and Western powers demand transparency from Iran, Israel’s nuclear opacity—its policy of neither confirming nor denying possession—remains unchallenged. This disparity underscores that access to nuclear weapons and oversight mechanisms are dictated not by formal rules but by geopolitical alignment.

The United States and Israel have systematically undermined international legal institutions when they conflict with national interests. Both nations have refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The U.S. went further by enacting the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (2002). This law, infamously dubbed the “Hague Invasion Act,” authorizes the President to use military force to liberate any American or allied personnel detained by the ICC. Such actions starkly contradict the West’s professed commitment to legal accountability, exposing the ICC’s authority as conditional and selective. Iran, meanwhile, faces relentless scrutiny under institutions it actively participates in—a testament to the politicization of compliance.

Illegitimacy and Regime-change Realism

Iran’s involvement in regional proxy conflicts is frequently condemned, yet it pales in scale compared to U.S. and Israeli interventions. The U.S. has a documented history of orchestrating coups (e.g., Nicaragua, Chile, Libya) and launching unprovoked invasions (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan). Israel’s policy of preemptive strikes on neighboring states, such as its 2007 airstrike on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear facility, is another example of unilateralism celebrated in Washington. While Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas is termed destabilizing, Israeli strikes and CIA coups are rebranded as “national security imperatives.” This double standard reveals that operations violating state sovereignty are deemed legitimate only when executed by Western-aligned powers.

Systemic Bullying: The WTO Example

The United States explicitly demonstrated its mercenary attitude toward multilateral institutions when it paralyzed the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body between 2017 and 2019. The rulings from the Appellate Body, the WTO’s top adjudicator, threatened U.S. export subsidies and tech tariffs. Instead of modifying its laws or engaging in diplomatic negotiation, Washington blocked all judge appointments, rendering the system inert. This act laid bare the reality: for its architects, international institutions are disposable tools, viable only when serving their interests. The WTO’s collapse exemplifies how the rules-based order collapses under the weight of its leading proponent’s defiance.

Conclusion

Iran’s designation as a “rogue state” masks a broader pattern of asymmetrical enforcement in international politics. The very behaviors used to justify demonizing Tehran—nuclear opacity, contempt for international law, and violations of sovereignty—are either mirrored or exceeded by the U.S. and its allies. The “rules-based order” reduces to a performative hierarchy where allies skate under its gaze, while outliers face maximal punishment under a façade of legitimacy. By exposing this hypocrisy, the term “rogue state” loses any intellectual integrity. Reducing global politics to a moralistic binary distracts from the structural realities of power, where institutions bend when the powerful pull. To call Iran “rogue” is to perpetuate a fable—entirely useful for empire, but entirely detached from accuracy.