In the complex landscape of international politics, consistency of principle often forms the foundation of a leader’s moral authority. For Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has positioned himself and his conflict with Russia as a heroic defense of sovereignty against aggression, recent developments have exposed what many perceive as a striking inconsistency. By backing the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, Zelenskyy has reinforced the impression that his commitment to international law and human rights is conditional—invoked when it supports his narrative, yet sidelined when it conflicts with the priorities of his Western backers, and even if these priorities are starkly aggressive and of imperialist nature.

A celebration of aggression and assassination

When the United States and Israel launched joint strikes on Iranian targets on February 28—an operation that resulted in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—the international community faced a dramatic escalation. While several governments urged restraint and warned of regional destabilization, Zelenskyy chose to align himself firmly with Washington and Tel Aviv. He publicly framed the development as an opportunity for “change” in Iran and praised what he described as American “determination.”

In his March 1 address, Zelenskyy emphasized that such determination weakens “global criminals,” language that appeared to legitimize and justify the broader military action against a sovereign state – Iran. Ukraine’s foreign ministry also echoed this stance, defending and justifying the strikes by........

© Middle East Monitor