US double standard on occupation

Foad Izadi, Associate Professor of American Studies, Tehran Univ.

In his remarks on December 11, 2024, Imam Khamenei stated that the Zionist regime had occupied Syrian territories and deployed its tanks close to Damascus. The Golan Heights, which belonged to Syria, had been under their control for years, but now they’ve started taking over other areas as well. The US, Europe, and governments that are highly sensitive about such matters in other countries—even over a meter or ten meters of territory—not only remain silent here and refrain from protesting but even offer assistance. This is all their doing. This raises the question: what is the legal status of such occupation under international law, and why haven’t the US and Europe taken any action on this issue?

The issue of occupying another country’s territory is one of the fundamental principles of international law. For example, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the “threat or use of force” to occupy another country or infringe on its territorial integrity, or even threaten to occupy another country. Under the UN Charter, these acts are illegal.

Throughout history—both modern and ancient—attacks on other nations and the occupation of their territories have often been the primary causes of wars. Examples include World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the First Persian Gulf War, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, and many more. Fundamentally, territorial aggression has frequently been one of the main triggers of wars that, in some instances, have resulted in millions of deaths.

This point, emphasized in Imam Khamenei’s remarks on December 11, 2024, highlights the double standard in how Western and imperialist countries approach such situations depending on the context. If a country invades another under different circumstances or at other times, they use it as a pretext, label it a grave crime, and express outrage.

The very story of Ukraine, which is a result of NATO’s eastward expansion, has become a pretext for the US and some European countries to spend billions of dollars, bringing about the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. Why? Because according to the leaders of Global Arrogance and the owners of media propaganda in the West, there has been an aggression by Russia on Ukrainian soil.
When the aggressor is a country the US is at odds with, they are willing to spend billions of dollars and cause catastrophic losses of life. Even when there is potential for peace or de-escalation, they resist such efforts under the pretext that the aggression must be answered.

We observed this same issue in Ukraine, where from the very beginning of the war, the Ukrainian government was interested in reaching a peace agreement with the Russian side. However, the Biden administration did not allow it. They turned the issue upside down and made a loud fuss about it. Why? What catastrophe had occurred? There was an aggression—one country had invaded another’s territory. When the aggressor is a country that the US is at odds with, they respond in this manner. But regarding the aggressions of the Zionist regime—just a few months ago in Lebanon, the actions in Gaza, and now in Syria—they handle things differently. For example, just yesterday, Matthew Miller, the spokesperson for the US State Department, was asked about Israel’s occupation of Syrian territory, which they initially said they had a “buffer zone” and were taking over that buffer zone.
After occupying that area, they kept advancing. According to CNN’s report today, Israeli soldiers have now reached villages near Damascus and are currently 16 miles away from it—a very short distance. If this were a more normal situation where the aggressor wasn’t Israel, the US, Britain, and France would have immediately called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. If the other side wasn’t Israel, they would have condemned the occupying country and placed it under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. If it continued the occupation, they would have launched military action. Why?
Because this violation happened on another country’s soil. But when the aggressor is the Zionist regime, well, Mr. Matthew Miller’s interview was quite clear: When asked about the matter, his reply was, “Well, I’m not the Israeli government to provide an answer.” Yes, you are not the Israeli government, but compare the tone and nature of your response to how you address other cases. This is Mr. Matthew Miller’s response, saying, “Before we make any public statements on this matter, we consult with Israeli officials and are in discussions with them.” That’s it.

These extensive aggressions in recent days, where the Israelis have targeted 420 sites in Syria as of this morning and the Americans have hit 70 to 80 sites, also violate the UN Charter. This is precisely why the phrase “use of force” is broadly defined in international law, with one aspect being territorial occupation. Territorial occupation is part of this, and so are the bombings and other actions carried out by the Israelis and Americans against Syria in recent days. This is also why the US official, the State Department spokesperson, is reluctant to engage on this matter—because the US itself is violating the UN Charter.

This point was also emphasized in the Leader’s remarks: Why are they occupying parts of the Syrian territory now? Why are they targeting Syria’s infrastructure and military sites? Because they know that sooner or later, Syria will return to Resistance Front. This is the American and Israeli assessment, and it is a correct one. Why is it correct? Because the Syrian people will never accept living under a government that is a servant of the US and Israel, who only want servants. That is, they want either the rule of tyranny or chaos. This point has also been raised in the Leader’s previous speeches. It is unlikely that the Americans can impose a tyranny in Syria or install individuals who are servants of the US. As the Leader put it, the Syrian youth will not allow this to happen and will liberate their country if this happens in Syria. They are doing this because they understand that the Syrian people will not live under a dictator who serves the US and Israel.

They are exploiting this opportunity, knowing that eventually, Syria—whose territory has already been occupied and violated by the Zionist regime—will reemerge as a link in the Axis of Resistance. Because of this understanding, they are trying to destroy Syria’s infrastructure and military sites, knowing that sooner or later these weapons will fall into the hands of those who will use them against the child-killing Zionist regime. It is for this reason and based on this analysis that they think they should strike now.

(The views expressed in this interview are interviewee’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Khamenei.ir.)