On the sidelines of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in New York, the Iranian diplomatic mission has faced unprecedented and abnormal restrictions imposed by the US government. Observers note that these restrictions not only stand in stark contradiction to international norms and rules but also serve as a clear sign of the hostility and extremism of US policymakers.
One of the strangest measures has been the US State Department’s requirement that Iranian diplomats obtain prior authorization even for ordinary purchases and daily necessities. Experts and public opinion in Iran and around the world have described this move as “embarrassing,” calling it a symbol of Washington’s most irrational behavior toward Tehran.
Meanwhile, political figures accused of war crimes—such as Israeli regime's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant—face no obstacles and move about freely in New York. This blatant contradiction more than anything exposes America’s double standards in dealing with the principles of international law.
News of these restrictions quickly sparked a wave of reactions across media outlets and social networks. Many regarded the policy as a sign of confusion and weakness in US foreign policy, stressing that such measures, rather than creating a real obstacle for Iranian diplomats, paint an image of Washington as an unreliable actor on the world stage.
One of the most significant aspects of the recent controversy is the double standards America applies in its foreign policy and diplomacy. While Iranian diplomats must obtain permission to buy the simplest daily items, political figures accused of international crimes walk freely in New York. This contradiction undermines the legitimacy of US foreign policy not only from a legal perspective but also from a moral one.
The clearest example of such duplicity is Washington’s stance on the ICC’s arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister. The Court issued the warrant, and many countries declared they would be obliged to enforce it if he entered their territories. Yet, the US openly stated it would impose no restrictions on his entry and defended his immunity. At the same time, the very same government imposes unprecedented restrictions on Iranian diplomats.
Such selective behavior shows that America’s criteria for applying international rules are not rooted in legal principles but in political interests and regional alliances. This approach positions the US as a country that accepts rules only when they benefit itself, and otherwise easily ignores them. This is precisely what many countries call “double standards” and the “instrumentalization of international law.”
The consequence of this duplicity is rising distrust toward the United States globally. Countries that may not today be directly targeted by such restrictions will conclude that tomorrow they too could fall victim to the same selective policies. Over time, this distrust erodes both bilateral and multilateral cooperation with Washington. In other words, through such behavior the US does not merely pressure Iran—it gradually undermines global confidence in itself.
Consequences of US double standards as UNGA host
First, Washington’s move, more than creating a practical obstacle for the Iranian delegation, erodes America’s symbolic capital as a “neutral host.” The country that hosts the UN headquarters carries a responsibility beyond bilateral disputes. Breaching this responsibility strengthens the perception of exploiting host status for political gain and undermines America’s moral legitimacy in managing multilateral events.
Second, this approach raises the costs to Washington’s international credibility. Even governments and elites not politically aligned with Tehran are sensitive to host neutrality as stakeholders in the institutional order. When abnormal restrictions are imposed on a member state’s delegation, the transnational message is that host rules are flexible and subject to expediency. The result is growing doubt about America’s reliability in future mediating and hosting roles.
Third, the credibility of the United Nations itself is diminished. When the host country becomes a tool of pressure, the hosted institution inevitably faces questions about its operational independence and equal access. This could revive demands for “geographical diversification” of meeting venues or even old proposals to relocate some events to more neutral grounds—directly reducing America’s soft power in multilateral diplomacy.
Finally, the domestic political cost cannot be ignored. The gap between America’s slogans about rule of law and its selective behavior in practice provides new ammunition for critics, both inside and outside the country, to challenge its policies. Continuing down this path, rather than constraining rivals, leads to the gradual erosion of US soft power—power that is decisive precisely in forums like the United Nations.
Why US behavior is a clear violation of international rules
Beyond the issue of US double standards, Washington’s move to restrict the Iranian delegation is in itself a clear breach of its international obligations as host of the UN.
Under the Headquarters Agreement signed in 1947 between the United States and the United Nations, Washington is obliged to guarantee free and unhindered access to UN premises and related activities for all representatives of member states. Conditioning diplomats’ daily purchases or restricting their movements openly contravenes these commitments.
International law emphasizes the principle of neutrality for host countries of international organizations. A host must provide equal conditions for all states, regardless of political disputes or bilateral conflicts.
The recent US measures, however, run counter to this principle and show that Washington is using its hosting status as a lever of political pressure. This amounts to politicizing a legal position and subordinating the independence of the UN to the interests of a single state.
While there have been instances in UN history where the US denied visas or imposed travel restrictions on delegations from certain countries, the new restrictions against Iran—even covering the purchase of basic necessities—represent an unprecedented level of interference. These measures are unrelated to security or legal frameworks; they are purely political decisions incompatible with the spirit of international cooperation. That is why experts have called them “unprecedented” and “embarrassing.”
Moreover, such behavior has implications far beyond US-Iran relations. If a country like the United States can, based on political motives, arbitrarily impose restrictions on UN member state delegations, other states may follow suit in similar situations. This trend would weaken the entire system of multilateral diplomacy and delegitimize one of the most important arenas of international dialogue.
Conclusion
America’s recent treatment of the Iranian delegation in New York goes beyond an isolated act and demonstrates Washington’s prioritization of political interests over international rules. Conditioning diplomats’ daily purchases constitutes a clear violation of the host country’s obligations under the UN framework, and rather than truly restricting Iran, it projects a hostile and unreliable image of the US internationally.
This contradiction becomes even more glaring when the Israeli prime minister, despite an ICC arrest warrant, travels freely to New York while Iranian diplomats face unprecedented restrictions. Such double standards tarnish Washington’s moral legitimacy and erode global trust in the US If continued, this path could intensify calls to relocate parts of UN activities to more neutral grounds—leading ultimately to America’s diplomatic isolation and reduced influence in the international order.
MNA