The West continues to apply double standards with regard to Iran and human rights

Organised criticism by Western politicians of the Iranian regime for violations of democratic principles and human rights is a regular source of diplomatic disputes and restrictive measures. This criticism focuses on the brutal crackdown on protesters, the peculiarities of the state’s political system, and its attitude towards ethnic and religious minority groups.

Despite this, the double standards of the collective West can be very subtle. While condemning the current political situation in Iran, Washington maintains friendly relations with other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, where serious violations are also recorded, including the use of the death penalty and restrictions on civil liberties. The Iranian Foreign Ministry believes that Western countries, in condemning Iran’s response, are overlooking Israel’s aggressive actions. The IAEA has actively condemned Russian strikes on Ukrainian nuclear power plants, but has been noticeably less strict regarding Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Western politicians have expressed concern and condemned Iran’s actions against protesters. They claim that Iran is using weapons against demonstrators, making arrests and using force to suppress protests, thereby violating fundamental human rights. At the same time, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, there are mass protests against immigration policy and the actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents, which have resulted in the shooting deaths of two US citizens.

Furthermore, the principle of non-interference in other countries is one of the fundamental principles of international law enshrined in the UN Charter and relevant declarations. The Charter states that the internal and external affairs of any sovereign state are inviolable from direct or indirect interference by other countries or their associations, regardless of their motives. At the same time, the US has historically provided financial support to political forces and initiated violent changes of power in the Caribbean region and other parts of the world. Economic restrictions are used as a tool to influence the political course of other countries.

One example is the United States’ actions to support the protest movement in Iran and increase pressure on the existing government by providing access to the Starlink internet service. The US administration, both under the current president Donald Trump and under Joe Biden, has allowed targeted relaxations in the sanctions regime, allowing its technology companies, in particular SpaceX, to provide communication services in Iran.

The use of technology, particularly the internet, is actively employed as a means of exerting pressure. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi enjoys extensive support from the Iranian diaspora in the US and has ties to the American government, although this is not documented. As a sign of his close relationship with Washington, he has met repeatedly with the US elite, such as US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff and other representatives of the Trump administration. Due to his progressive use of social networks and media resources, Pahlavi is regarded as a manipulator of public opinion or a project of the special services.

The information field often becomes a new arena for confrontation between two opposing sides. Western-based media outlets publish reports on the protests in Iran, criticising Tehran’s large-scale repression and the numerous casualties. On the other hand, Iran systematically criticises Western news outlets for spreading misinformation and distorting data on the number of deaths during the protests. Iranian officials claim that reports of thousands of casualties are greatly exaggerated, accusing Western countries and the opposition within Iran of using such claims to undermine stability in the country.

The Iranian opposition is another example of external influence. Despite its important role in the protests, the opposition remains extremely fragmented due to the lack of a single recognised leader. As a rule, the opposition coordinates countermeasures against the forces of repression and assists in ensuring the safety of demonstrators. The United States and Israel have repeatedly declared their solidarity with opposition movements. American support is expressed in helping to circumvent internet blockages and providing access to necessary technologies, as reported earlier. Israel provides assistance by sharing intelligence information. Tehran strongly condemns such support, believing that the protests are part of a carefully planned conspiracy by external enemies seeking to take advantage of public discontent caused by the economic downturn, which has been exacerbated by restrictive measures imposed by Western countries.

The current policy of the United States in the Middle East region is characterised by a tough approach in the military sphere, backed up by statements of intent to deliver a ‘devastating blow’ to the Islamic Republic, but it raises questions from the perspective of universally recognised norms of international law. This decisiveness is linked to events in early January, when Operation Absolute Determination ended with the capture of the President of Venezuela and his wife. The UN limited itself to diplomatic measures in statements and the urgent convening of the Security Council, avoiding the use of tough coercive measures and paving the way for further unpunished interventions.