In a message on his X account marking the 87th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II, Esmaeil Baqaei criticized the selective application of international rules and double standards, particularly by major powers, and drew parallels between the pre-1939 international environment and the current global order.
“September 1 marks the 87th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II. The war did not suddenly erupt in 1939. Long before the first shots were fired, aggression had already been normalized, borders were being redrawn by force, and great powers remained silent - or invented justifications - whenever international norms were violated in service of their interests. Indeed, the war had begun not with gunfire, but when ‘exceptions gradually replaced ‘rules’,” he said.
“Eighty-seven years later, Europe and the world confront the same problem. Europe speaks of a ‘rules-based order,’ yet the credibility of that order is tested by whether its rules are applied equally - to friends and adversaries, great powers and small states alike. The United States, despite its historic role in building the post-1945 international order, has repeatedly shown that when its interests are at stake, it can readily step beyond those same rules. When the law is applied selectively, one cannot expect others to take it seriously,” Baqaei added.
“Has the world learned the lessons of 1939? The answer is hardly reassuring. One need only examine America’s own violations of international law and its instrumental approach to the international order. State sovereignty is routinely compromised, double standards are pervasive, and geopolitical calculation continues to sideline the fundamental principles of the United Nations. Still, the greatest danger may not be the violation of the law itself, but its 'normalization',” the Iranian spokesman stated.
“In The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam, Barbara Tuchman describes how decision-makers can become so attached to their assumptions that they fail to see contradictory realities. This ‘wooden-headedness’ consists in assessing a situation according to preconceived notions while ignoring contrary evidence. Folly, she writes, is the pursuit of policy contrary to self-interest, despite the availability of feasible alternatives,” he noted.