September 21 is observed around the world as the International Day of Peace, a day designated by the United Nations General Assembly in 1981 to commemorate and promote the ideals of peace. Since 2001, it has also been recognized as a day for a global ceasefire and nonviolence. Yet realities on the ground show that the gap between the rhetoric of peace and the conduct of Western powers remains deep. Over the past decades, these powers have defined peace not through justice and coexistence, but through war, intervention and domination.

International conferences and idealistic speeches, including at forums such as the Munich Security Conference, place the West in the position of claiming leadership in global peace even as its historical record is filled with war and destruction. The ideas of figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr. were grounded in ethics, humanity and peaceful coexistence. Yet the killing of many advocates of peace amid violence has shown that the interests of powerful states continue to overshadow human ideals.

Even the Nobel Peace Prize, established to honor efforts to promote peace, has at times faced criticism for being awarded to controversial political and military figures.

Warmongering Under the Banner of Freedom and Human Rights

The US, which portrays itself as one of the architects of the post-World War II order, has played a role in numerous military conflicts over the decades, from Vietnam and the Balkans to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran. Justifications such as fighting terrorism, eliminating weapons of mass destruction and protecting populations have repeatedly been used to legitimize military interventions, while the consequences of many of these wars have included civilian deaths, displacement and the destruction of vital infrastructure.

Statements attributed to former US President Jimmy Carter regarding the long history of US wars offer a critical picture of the gap between the country’s claims of peace and its conduct. Today, too, the same powers that raise the banner of freedom and human rights have, in some cases, dealt with armed groups such as bin Laden and Jolani based on expediency, while resorting to military action against Iran, a country that regards itself as being on the front lines of the fight against terrorism.

NATO’s rising military budgets and hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons spending, amid widening economic and energy crises, raise a fundamental question for global public opinion: To what extent could these enormous military resources have instead been used to combat hunger and poverty and save millions of lives?

Ramadan War: Need to Build Security From Within

During the 12-day war, the US targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities under the pretext of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, even as nuclear negotiations were underway. During the Ramadan War, Washington likewise launched military aggression alongside the Israeli regime and in the midst of negotiations, claiming to support the Iranian people. The aggression resulted in the martyrdom of Minab and Lamerd schoolchildren, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, military commanders and thousands of people.

The war once again highlighted the contradiction between the West’s human rights claims and the conduct of institutions that claim to defend human rights. The silence or inadequate response of some international institutions in the face of the aggression demonstrated that reliance on external support, without national power and deterrent capabilities, cannot guarantee the security of countries.

By drawing on its military capabilities, diplomatic capacity, the presence and cohesion of its people, and the geopolitical position of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran was able to resist the aggressors. This experience made even clearer the need to strengthen domestic capabilities and reduce dependence on imposed security arrangements. Trump’s refusal to implement the Islamabad memorandum of understanding despite having signed it further deepened distrust of the commitments of major powers.

Indigenizing Security: A Prelude to a New World Order

Peace becomes an unattainable commodity when countries, particularly in sensitive regions such as West Asia, tie their security to the promises of extra-regional powers instead of relying on regional engagement and convergence. Such an approach intensifies unhealthy competition among regional countries and turns them into arms markets for major powers.

Meanwhile, the Israeli regime, backed militarily and politically by the West, has repeatedly escaped accountability for its actions. The experience of agreements such as Oslo and Camp David has also shown that lasting peace cannot be achieved without guaranteeing the rights of the Palestinian people and genuine adherence to commitments.

The 12-day and Ramadan wars further exposed the ineffectiveness of the US model of selling security, a model that leaves even Washington’s regional allies exposed to threats and costs. Consequently, indigenous security-building and regional cooperation have become increasingly necessary, a path that Iran has emphasized through its Hormuz Peace Initiative.

To achieve a just and lasting peace, the world needs to move beyond a unilateral order toward a multilateral structure in which human rights, national independence and justice are not sacrificed to the interests of major powers. True peace lies not in the accumulation of weapons, but in addressing the root causes of war, combating discrimination and ending impunity for aggressors.