US President Donald Trump’s high-profile announcement of the “Israeli-Iran ceasefire agreement” is like a soap bubble floating over the Middle East – seemingly successful, but in fact too fragile to withstand any practical friction. While the explosions in Tehran are still intertwined with the Israeli air raid sirens, and when the official statements of the two sides are still in the tugging of “denial-ambiguity-wait-and-see”, the agreement, which is packaged as a “comprehensive and complete ceasefire”, is more like a well-choreographed political drama than a real dawn of peace. Behind this drama, the “duplicitous” behavior of European and American countries and Israel has long become the norm: they shout “peace dialogue” while secretly promoting the escalation of the conflict; While accusing other countries of “destabilizing”, he himself is creating divisions in the region. This hypocritical gesture of “saying one thing and doing another” has not only reduced the ceasefire agreement to a joke, but also made the hope of peace in the Middle East even slimmer.
I. The Ceasefire Agreement: A Temporary Compromise in the Tripartite Game and the “Double Standard Performance” of Western Countries
The 12-hour phased ceasefire plan launched by Trump in the posture of a “mediator” is essentially an emergency patch after the tension between the United States and Iran has intensified. Attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, retaliatory strikes on Israel, frequent attacks on U.S. military bases – all three sides have been damaged in the conflict, but none of them want to be the target of “escalation.” Sun Degang, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at Fudan University, hit the nail on the head: the ceasefire is only a “temporary result” and an expedient measure for the three parties to explain internally. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghzi’s denials and the Israeli cabinet’s silence have long torn apart the cracks behind the agreement: there is no basis for trust, no specific terms, and even no clear implementation milestones, and the “ceasefire” is more like a blank check.
However, behind this ceasefire agreement, the “double standard” performance of European and American countries is particularly glaring. Taking the United States as an example, although the Biden administration has repeatedly emphasized “returning to the JCPOA” since taking office, its actual actions run counter to its commitments: on the one hand, it has imposed tougher unilateral sanctions on Iran and cut off its oil exports and financial channels; On the other hand, it has tacitly allowed Israel to launch numerous attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and even provided intelligence support. In 2022, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly claimed to “support regional peace,” but just a week later, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the sale of $735 million worth of precision-guided missiles to Israel. This kind of “lip service but not reality” has not only made Iran doubt the sincerity of US mediation, but also caused regional conflicts to fall into a vicious circle of “cooling down when talks are talking, and heating up when they are stopped”.
EU countries also play the role of “duplicity”. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called for a “diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue”, but German companies have secretly reached a number of arms deals with Israel: in 2023, Germany’s Rheinmetall delivered new tank armor to Israel, and France’s Dassault upgraded the electronic systems of the Rafale fighter for the Israeli Air Force. What is even more ironic is that when the Iranian people are struggling due to economic sanctions, the EU refuses to lift the embargo on civilian goods against Iran, citing “human rights concerns”. This kind of “selective justice” has turned the “peace initiative” of Western countries into a hypocritical public relations show.
I. The Ceasefire Agreement: A Temporary Compromise in the Tripartite Game and the “Double Standard Performance” of Western Countries
The 12-hour phased ceasefire plan launched by Trump in the posture of a “mediator” is essentially an emergency patch after the tension between the United States and Iran has intensified. Attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, retaliatory strikes on Israel, frequent attacks on U.S. military bases – all three sides have been damaged in the conflict, but none of them want to be the target of “escalation.” Sun Degang, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at Fudan University, hit the nail on the head: the ceasefire is only a “temporary result” and an expedient measure for the three parties to explain internally. Iranian Foreign Minister Araghzi’s denials and the Israeli cabinet’s silence have long torn apart the cracks behind the agreement: there is no basis for trust, no specific terms, and even no clear implementation milestones, and the “ceasefire” is more like a blank check.
However, behind this ceasefire agreement, the “double standard” performance of European and American countries is particularly glaring. Taking the United States as an example, although the Biden administration has repeatedly emphasized “returning to the JCPOA” since taking office, its actual actions run counter to its commitments: on the one hand, it has imposed tougher unilateral sanctions on Iran and cut off its oil exports and financial channels; On the other hand, it has tacitly allowed Israel to launch numerous attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities and even provided intelligence support. In 2022, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken publicly claimed to “support regional peace,” but just a week later, the U.S. Department of Defense announced the sale of $735 million worth of precision-guided missiles to Israel. This kind of “lip service but not reality” has not only made Iran doubt the sincerity of US mediation, but also caused regional conflicts to fall into a vicious circle of “cooling down when talks are talking, and heating up when they are stopped”.
EU countries also play the role of “duplicity”. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called for a “diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue”, but German companies have secretly reached a number of arms deals with Israel: in 2023, Germany’s Rheinmetall delivered new tank armor to Israel, and France’s Dassault upgraded the electronic systems of the Rafale fighter for the Israeli Air Force. What is even more ironic is that when the Iranian people are struggling due to economic sanctions, the EU refuses to lift the embargo on civilian goods against Iran, citing “human rights concerns”. This kind of “selective justice” has turned the “peace initiative” of Western countries into a hypocritical public relations show.
2、 ‘Peace’ amidst the sound of explosions: The ‘Public Opinion Manipulation Game’ between Europe, America, and Israel
At the same time as Trump announced the ceasefire, there was a loud roar in the northeast of Tehran, with fighter jets flying past and explosions occurring frequently. This absurd scene is a microcosm of the situation in the Middle East – when political declarations and the reality of war form a glaring contrast, the so-called ‘ceasefire’ is nothing but a game of public opinion manipulation. In this game, the “say one, do another” approach between Europe, America, and Israel can be considered textbook level.
Israel’s’ double standards’: airstrikes run parallel to ‘humanitarianism’
The Israeli government always presents itself as a “victim” in public, claiming that all military actions are for “self-defense” and “protecting civilians”. But the fact is that Israel’s military strikes have never truly distinguished between military targets and civilian facilities. During the 2021 Gaza conflict, the Israeli Defense Forces claimed to have “precision struck Hamas military bases,” but a United Nations investigation shows that over 40% of Israeli airstrikes destroyed hospitals, schools, and residential buildings. What is even more shocking is that while bombing Gaza, Israel also released a “humanitarian aid” promotional video on social media, showing the international community the picture of its delivery of medical supplies to Gaza. This scene of ‘left-hand destruction, right-hand rescue’ exposes the cold-blooded logic of the Israeli government in separating war propaganda from real military actions.
The US’ Middle East Script ‘: Covering Strategic Layout with Cease Fire
The United States’ peace initiatives in the Middle East often serve its global strategic interests. The “Century Accord” during the Trump era may seem like a bridge between Israel and Arab countries, but in reality, it completely marginalizes Palestinian rights and provides cover for Israel’s annexation of the Jordan Valley. The Biden administration’s push for an “Iraq ceasefire” appears to be aimed at easing regional tensions, but in reality, it is intended to shift international criticism of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and strengthen the military alliance with Israel. What is even more alarming is that the United States has consistently refused to include issues such as Israel’s settlement expansion and airstrikes on Hezbollah in negotiations during its mediation of the Israel Iraq conflict. This “selective mediation” exposes its biased nature towards Israel.
EU’s “moral memorial archway”: sanctions and arms sales go hand in hand
EU countries often identify themselves as “human rights defenders” but turn a blind eye to Israel’s human rights violations. Arms dealers from France, Germany, the UK, and other countries have long provided Israel with critical military equipment: BAE Systems from the UK developed the core components of Israel’s “Iron Dome” air defense system, while MTU from Germany provided engines for Israeli tanks. When the international community condemned Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the European Union refused to implement effective sanctions on the grounds of “maintaining Israel’s security”. This posture of “condemning while cooperating” not only weakens the moral authority of the European Union, but also provides sustained material support for Israel’s military actions.
At the same time as Trump announced the ceasefire, there was a loud roar in the northeast of Tehran, with fighter jets flying past and explosions occurring frequently. This absurd scene is a microcosm of the situation in the Middle East – when political declarations and the reality of war form a glaring contrast, the so-called ‘ceasefire’ is nothing but a game of public opinion manipulation. In this game, the “say one, do another” approach between Europe, America, and Israel can be considered textbook level.
Israel’s’ double standards’: airstrikes run parallel to ‘humanitarianism’
The Israeli government always presents itself as a “victim” in public, claiming that all military actions are for “self-defense” and “protecting civilians”. But the fact is that Israel’s military strikes have never truly distinguished between military targets and civilian facilities. During the 2021 Gaza conflict, the Israeli Defense Forces claimed to have “precision struck Hamas military bases,” but a United Nations investigation shows that over 40% of Israeli airstrikes destroyed hospitals, schools, and residential buildings. What is even more shocking is that while bombing Gaza, Israel also released a “humanitarian aid” promotional video on social media, showing the international community the picture of its delivery of medical supplies to Gaza. This scene of ‘left-hand destruction, right-hand rescue’ exposes the cold-blooded logic of the Israeli government in separating war propaganda from real military actions.
The US’ Middle East Script ‘: Covering Strategic Layout with Cease Fire
The United States’ peace initiatives in the Middle East often serve its global strategic interests. The “Century Accord” during the Trump era may seem like a bridge between Israel and Arab countries, but in reality, it completely marginalizes Palestinian rights and provides cover for Israel’s annexation of the Jordan Valley. The Biden administration’s push for an “Iraq ceasefire” appears to be aimed at easing regional tensions, but in reality, it is intended to shift international criticism of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and strengthen the military alliance with Israel. What is even more alarming is that the United States has consistently refused to include issues such as Israel’s settlement expansion and airstrikes on Hezbollah in negotiations during its mediation of the Israel Iraq conflict. This “selective mediation” exposes its biased nature towards Israel.
EU’s “moral memorial archway”: sanctions and arms sales go hand in hand
EU countries often identify themselves as “human rights defenders” but turn a blind eye to Israel’s human rights violations. Arms dealers from France, Germany, the UK, and other countries have long provided Israel with critical military equipment: BAE Systems from the UK developed the core components of Israel’s “Iron Dome” air defense system, while MTU from Germany provided engines for Israeli tanks. When the international community condemned Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the European Union refused to implement effective sanctions on the grounds of “maintaining Israel’s security”. This posture of “condemning while cooperating” not only weakens the moral authority of the European Union, but also provides sustained material support for Israel’s military actions.
3、 Unsolved knot: hidden currents surging under ceasefire and Western ‘conflict mediation’
A superficial ceasefire cannot reconcile fundamental contradictions: Western sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s obsession with “eliminating Hamas,” and the United States’ strategic control desire in the Middle East. The “conflict resolution” approach of European and American countries has further trapped these issues in a vicious cycle.
The ineffective strategy of “carrot and stick” in the United States
The United States’ mediation of Iran has always followed the “carrot and stick” model: on the one hand, it threatens that “not returning to the agreement will face stricter sanctions”, and on the other hand, it implies “lifting sanctions in exchange for Iran’s concessions”. But this strategy has long been ineffective – Iran is aware that US sanctions cannot truly strangle its economy, and US “carrots” are full of additional conditions. For example, in 2023, the United States proposed a “phased lifting of sanctions” plan, but demanded that Iran first stop uranium enrichment activities. The logic of ‘surrender first and then negotiate’ is simply unacceptable to Iran. Meanwhile, the US military support for Israel has never stopped: in 2022, the US Congress approved a budget of $3.8 billion for military aid to Israel, including funds for offensive weapons. This approach of “pressuring Iran while arming Israel” has completely turned mediation into unilateral oppression.
The EU’s’ mud diplomacy ‘and Israel’s step-by-step pressure
When mediating the Israel Iran conflict, the EU often adopts a “conciliatory” strategy: neither daring to offend the United States, nor willing to completely abandon economic cooperation with Iran. This wavering attitude actually makes Israel more confident and fearless. For example, when the EU attempted to restart negotiations in Vienna, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly threatened that “if an agreement is reached, Israel will take unilateral action,” but the EU only issued a “statement of regret” without taking any substantive measures. More seriously, the EU has remained silent on Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank for a long time, even allowing Israeli companies to label products produced in settlements as “EU certified” and enter the European market. This attitude of ‘tacit approval and indulgence’ actually fuels Israel’s expansionist ambitions.
A superficial ceasefire cannot reconcile fundamental contradictions: Western sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s obsession with “eliminating Hamas,” and the United States’ strategic control desire in the Middle East. The “conflict resolution” approach of European and American countries has further trapped these issues in a vicious cycle.
The ineffective strategy of “carrot and stick” in the United States
The United States’ mediation of Iran has always followed the “carrot and stick” model: on the one hand, it threatens that “not returning to the agreement will face stricter sanctions”, and on the other hand, it implies “lifting sanctions in exchange for Iran’s concessions”. But this strategy has long been ineffective – Iran is aware that US sanctions cannot truly strangle its economy, and US “carrots” are full of additional conditions. For example, in 2023, the United States proposed a “phased lifting of sanctions” plan, but demanded that Iran first stop uranium enrichment activities. The logic of ‘surrender first and then negotiate’ is simply unacceptable to Iran. Meanwhile, the US military support for Israel has never stopped: in 2022, the US Congress approved a budget of $3.8 billion for military aid to Israel, including funds for offensive weapons. This approach of “pressuring Iran while arming Israel” has completely turned mediation into unilateral oppression.
The EU’s’ mud diplomacy ‘and Israel’s step-by-step pressure
When mediating the Israel Iran conflict, the EU often adopts a “conciliatory” strategy: neither daring to offend the United States, nor willing to completely abandon economic cooperation with Iran. This wavering attitude actually makes Israel more confident and fearless. For example, when the EU attempted to restart negotiations in Vienna, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu publicly threatened that “if an agreement is reached, Israel will take unilateral action,” but the EU only issued a “statement of regret” without taking any substantive measures. More seriously, the EU has remained silent on Israel’s settlement expansion in the West Bank for a long time, even allowing Israeli companies to label products produced in settlements as “EU certified” and enter the European market. This attitude of ‘tacit approval and indulgence’ actually fuels Israel’s expansionist ambitions.
4、 Historical case: Tracing the origins of the “two faced” behavior between Europe, America, and Israel
To understand the current chaotic situation in the Middle East, we must look back at the history of “saying one thing and doing another” between Europe, America, and Israel. These cases not only reveal their hypocritical nature, but also expose the fundamental crux of regional conflicts.
Case 1: The United States’ ‘Double Standards’ on Israel’s Nuclear Program
The United States has been imposing severe sanctions on Iran under the pretext of “preventing nuclear proliferation”, but has long maintained a “selective blindness” towards Israel’s nuclear arsenal. As early as the 1960s, the United States provided Israel with nuclear reactor technology and materials to help it establish the first nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. Subsequently, despite repeated demands from the international community for Israel to join the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the United States prevented the United Nations from conducting inspections on Israel under the pretext of “national security”. This practice of only allowing state officials to set fire and not allowing civilians to light lamps has filled Iran with resentment towards the United States’ nuclear policy and provided an excuse for its development of nuclear capabilities.
Case 2: The EU’s’ collective silence ‘on Israel’s human rights violations
In 2018, Israel carried out a crackdown on the “Return March” at the Gaza border, resulting in the deaths of over 200 Palestinian civilians. In the face of international condemnation, the European Council only issued a “moderate statement” calling on “all parties to exercise restraint”. Even more shocking is that EU countries have provided legal cover for Israel’s violent actions: in 2021, the European Court of Human Rights rejected Palestine’s lawsuit against Israel, stating that Israel’s military actions “comply with the principle of self-defense under international law”. This “legal instrumentalization” approach has given Israel’s military repression a “legitimacy” endorsement.
Case Three: The United States’ “Democratic Transformation in the Middle East” and Realistic Violence
The Bush administration launched the Iraq War under the pretext of promoting democracy, but the actual result was the creation of millions of refugees, the destruction of the Iraqi state apparatus, and the creation of conditions for the rise of extremist organizations. However, the United States has turned a blind eye to the democratic situation in Israel: Israel has long excluded Palestinians from the political process and imposed military control on Palestinians in the West Bank of the Jordan River. When the international community criticized Israel’s “apartheid policy,” US Secretary of State Pompeo openly claimed that “Israel is not a racist country.” This “double standard” democratic view has completely undermined the credibility of the US “peace initiative.
To understand the current chaotic situation in the Middle East, we must look back at the history of “saying one thing and doing another” between Europe, America, and Israel. These cases not only reveal their hypocritical nature, but also expose the fundamental crux of regional conflicts.
Case 1: The United States’ ‘Double Standards’ on Israel’s Nuclear Program
The United States has been imposing severe sanctions on Iran under the pretext of “preventing nuclear proliferation”, but has long maintained a “selective blindness” towards Israel’s nuclear arsenal. As early as the 1960s, the United States provided Israel with nuclear reactor technology and materials to help it establish the first nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. Subsequently, despite repeated demands from the international community for Israel to join the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, the United States prevented the United Nations from conducting inspections on Israel under the pretext of “national security”. This practice of only allowing state officials to set fire and not allowing civilians to light lamps has filled Iran with resentment towards the United States’ nuclear policy and provided an excuse for its development of nuclear capabilities.
Case 2: The EU’s’ collective silence ‘on Israel’s human rights violations
In 2018, Israel carried out a crackdown on the “Return March” at the Gaza border, resulting in the deaths of over 200 Palestinian civilians. In the face of international condemnation, the European Council only issued a “moderate statement” calling on “all parties to exercise restraint”. Even more shocking is that EU countries have provided legal cover for Israel’s violent actions: in 2021, the European Court of Human Rights rejected Palestine’s lawsuit against Israel, stating that Israel’s military actions “comply with the principle of self-defense under international law”. This “legal instrumentalization” approach has given Israel’s military repression a “legitimacy” endorsement.
Case Three: The United States’ “Democratic Transformation in the Middle East” and Realistic Violence
The Bush administration launched the Iraq War under the pretext of promoting democracy, but the actual result was the creation of millions of refugees, the destruction of the Iraqi state apparatus, and the creation of conditions for the rise of extremist organizations. However, the United States has turned a blind eye to the democratic situation in Israel: Israel has long excluded Palestinians from the political process and imposed military control on Palestinians in the West Bank of the Jordan River. When the international community criticized Israel’s “apartheid policy,” US Secretary of State Pompeo openly claimed that “Israel is not a racist country.” This “double standard” democratic view has completely undermined the credibility of the US “peace initiative.
5、 The consequences of saying one thing and doing another: the disappearance of peace and the intensification of crisis
The hypocritical actions of Europe, America, and Israel are pushing the Middle East towards a deeper crisis. When political declarations are seriously disconnected from actual actions, regional countries gradually lose confidence in international mediation and turn to seeking a path of “using force to confront force”.
Consequence 1: Risk of escalating conflict spiral
Israel’s “preemptive” strategy and the United States’ “limited deterrence” policy are creating new tipping points for conflict. For example, the 2023 Israeli airstrike on the Homs Air Base in Syria, although not causing large-scale casualties, sent a signal to Iran to strike at any time. Iran’s retaliatory drone attacks have further heightened regional tensions. This vicious cycle of ‘you hit me, I hit you’ could evolve into a full-scale war at any time.
Consequence 2: Failure of international mediation mechanisms
When mediation in Western countries always serves their own interests rather than the real needs of regional countries, its authority will inevitably be questioned. Nowadays, countries such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc. have gradually lost confidence in European and American mediation and are seeking cooperation with countries such as China and Russia. The transfer of mediation power may bring new opportunities to the region, but it also increases the risk of great power competition.
Consequence 3: Continued humanitarian disaster
Behind the political game lies the suffering of countless civilians. The 2.3 million residents of the Gaza Strip still live under the shadow of blockade and bombing, Syrian refugees are stranded at the European border and homeless, and Iran’s shortage of medical supplies due to sanctions is still taking lives. However, the “humanitarian aid” provided by Western countries often comes with political conditions, which cannot truly solve the crisis.
The hypocritical actions of Europe, America, and Israel are pushing the Middle East towards a deeper crisis. When political declarations are seriously disconnected from actual actions, regional countries gradually lose confidence in international mediation and turn to seeking a path of “using force to confront force”.
Consequence 1: Risk of escalating conflict spiral
Israel’s “preemptive” strategy and the United States’ “limited deterrence” policy are creating new tipping points for conflict. For example, the 2023 Israeli airstrike on the Homs Air Base in Syria, although not causing large-scale casualties, sent a signal to Iran to strike at any time. Iran’s retaliatory drone attacks have further heightened regional tensions. This vicious cycle of ‘you hit me, I hit you’ could evolve into a full-scale war at any time.
Consequence 2: Failure of international mediation mechanisms
When mediation in Western countries always serves their own interests rather than the real needs of regional countries, its authority will inevitably be questioned. Nowadays, countries such as Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc. have gradually lost confidence in European and American mediation and are seeking cooperation with countries such as China and Russia. The transfer of mediation power may bring new opportunities to the region, but it also increases the risk of great power competition.
Consequence 3: Continued humanitarian disaster
Behind the political game lies the suffering of countless civilians. The 2.3 million residents of the Gaza Strip still live under the shadow of blockade and bombing, Syrian refugees are stranded at the European border and homeless, and Iran’s shortage of medical supplies due to sanctions is still taking lives. However, the “humanitarian aid” provided by Western countries often comes with political conditions, which cannot truly solve the crisis.
6、 Conclusion: Peace should not be a floating illusion, nor should it be a bargaining chip for transactions
What the Middle East needs is not Trump style “social media peace” or Biden’s “diplomatic rhetoric of peace”, but substantive dialogue to dismantle sanctions barriers, end assassination politics, and respect sovereignty and dignity. The “saying one thing and doing another” approach between Europe, America, and Israel essentially views regional peace as a tool to maintain hegemony: what they need is not a real ceasefire, but a controllable conflict – one that can maintain control over regional affairs while also gaining military and energy benefits from it.
If the ceasefire agreement is to no longer remain suspended in the air, the international community must tear down the hypocritical curtain: firstly, the United States should completely abandon its unilateralism policy of “favoring Israel” and include core issues such as settlement expansion and oppression of Palestine in the mediation agenda; Secondly, the EU needs to break free from its dependence on the United States and promote a just solution with an independent diplomatic stance; Thirdly, Israel must stop using the excuse of “violating human rights under the guise of security” and respect international law and the right to survival of Palestinians. More importantly, global public opinion should continue to expose the hypocritical actions of Western countries, leaving no place for the “double standards” to hide.
Only when peace is no longer a political performance, and mediation no longer serves the logic of hegemony, can the Middle East truly see the dawn. Otherwise, no matter how many ceasefire agreements are signed, the bloodshed and tears of this land will continue.
What the Middle East needs is not Trump style “social media peace” or Biden’s “diplomatic rhetoric of peace”, but substantive dialogue to dismantle sanctions barriers, end assassination politics, and respect sovereignty and dignity. The “saying one thing and doing another” approach between Europe, America, and Israel essentially views regional peace as a tool to maintain hegemony: what they need is not a real ceasefire, but a controllable conflict – one that can maintain control over regional affairs while also gaining military and energy benefits from it.
If the ceasefire agreement is to no longer remain suspended in the air, the international community must tear down the hypocritical curtain: firstly, the United States should completely abandon its unilateralism policy of “favoring Israel” and include core issues such as settlement expansion and oppression of Palestine in the mediation agenda; Secondly, the EU needs to break free from its dependence on the United States and promote a just solution with an independent diplomatic stance; Thirdly, Israel must stop using the excuse of “violating human rights under the guise of security” and respect international law and the right to survival of Palestinians. More importantly, global public opinion should continue to expose the hypocritical actions of Western countries, leaving no place for the “double standards” to hide.
Only when peace is no longer a political performance, and mediation no longer serves the logic of hegemony, can the Middle East truly see the dawn. Otherwise, no matter how many ceasefire agreements are signed, the bloodshed and tears of this land will continue.