Liberal Values: Terms and Conditions May Apply | GeOped

As global leaders pledge allegiance to democracy, the crackle of gunfire between Iran and Israel asks a sharper question: are liberal values just words when the world is on fire?

Democracy and liberal principles have long been regarded as desirable goals that should be pursued both inside and outside of state borders in the current international system. Western countries, especially the United States, which has positioned itself as a defender of freedom and democratic principles, have frequently taken the lead in the worldwide movement to advance democratic government, protect civil liberties, and encourage human rights. Platforms like the Summit for Democracy, which was started under the Biden administration in reaction to the global wave of democratic backsliding, demonstrate efforts to institutionalize and legitimate these ideals.

However, despite the fact that democratic summits bring together intellectuals, political figures, and members of civil society from all over the world to express a common vision, real-world occurrences like the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran highlight the project's harsh inconsistencies and limits.

However, the global landscape into which the Summit emerged was far from ideal. Across the world, there has been a steady decline in democratic norms. Reports by watchdog organizations such as Freedom House and The Economist Intelligence Unit highlight that more than two-thirds of the global population live under partially free or autocratic regimes. The liberal democratic model is under attack, from restrictions on press freedom in India and Hungary to electoral repression in Belarus and Myanmar. The argument that democracy promotion frequently suffers from selective application exacerbates this situation. Even though Western democracies are outspoken in their condemnation of some authoritarian governments, they frequently ignore comparable actions taken by crucial allies.

The moral authority of promoting democracy has been undermined by this contradiction, which has also made room for competing ideological models put forth by nations like China and Russia.

The war between Iran and Israel brings these tensions into sharp relief. As of mid-2025, the conflict has evolved from a cold confrontation into a deadly hot war, with both states engaging in direct military strikes, cyberattacks, and aggressive regional posturing. Israel, often upheld as a liberal democracy in the Middle East, finds itself accused of excessive military force, civilian casualties, and increasing authoritarian tendencies at home especially in the form of judicial overhauls and restrictions on dissent.

On the other hand, Iran, ruled by an Islamic theocracy with little tolerance for political opposition, remains deeply opposed to Western democratic ideals, which it views as tools of cultural and political domination.

Iran and Israel's ideological conflict is more than just a geopolitical competition; it is a conflict between two drastically different philosophies of society and government. Iran presents itself as a revolutionary state battling Western imperialism, while Israel proclaims its democratic credentials despite its complex connection with the occupied Palestinian territories because it highlights the boundaries of Western solidarity, the precariousness of peace in a dangerous region, and the unequal application of liberal norms during times of crisis, the present conflict has greatly complicated the debate around democracy throughout the world.

In this sense, the Iran-Israel confrontation is especially important because it highlights the flaws in the global democratic enterprise. Much of the Global South has denounced what it views as selective empathy and moral inconsistency, even as the United States and many European nations have reiterated their support for Israel, including military and diplomatic assistance. African, Latin American, and Asian nations have noted that whereas liberal democracies condemn breaches of human rights in authoritarian regimes, they frequently say little about comparable atrocities carried out by their friends.

Efforts to establish a broad democratic consensus have been undermined by the rising hostility and distrust caused by this double standard.

In addition, the war has serious ramifications for Middle Eastern democracy and government. It has made it possible for governments to use the pretext of national security to defend internal repression. Using the war as an excuse, authoritarian regimes in the area have tightened control over civil society, suppressed opposition, and censored the media, claiming that strong leadership is necessary to address the instability. The Iran-Israel conflict has only served to highlight the tendency for democratic norms to be sacrificed during times of conflict. Local governments increasingly put security above civil freedoms and reject outside influence they see as biased or interventionist, making it much harder to advance liberal changes in places like Lebanon, Iraq, or Syria.

The ongoing conflict also highlights how brittle and transactional global support for liberal ideals can be. Formerly united in their support of democracy, nations are now responding to the war differently, exposing the geopolitical considerations that frequently take precedence over ideological convictions. For instance, the European Union's internal disagreements over how to react to Israeli military activities have shown the boundaries of its unity, despite the fact that it still has a significant investment in programs that promote democracy. In an effort to undermine the supremacy of the liberal order and change global norms, China and Russia have bolstered their diplomatic and technical relations with Iran.

The battle has also exposed the shortcomings of the institutions that oversee global governance. Due to veto politics and severe disagreements among its member nations, the UN has mainly failed to mediate or even effectively address the issue. Regional groups have also provided little more than empty bluster. The future of promoting democracy is seriously threatened by this decline in multilateral diplomacy, which implies that there is no impartial forum for resolving conflicts or upholding international standards in a way that is really balanced.

One of the most obvious lessons for those who support democracy in the wake of the Iran-Israel conflict is the necessity of a partnership between justice and peace. Encouraging democracy in conflict areas necessitates actions to put a stop to violence, resolve past grievances, and promote reconciliation in addition to electoral reform and governance training. In countries shattered by conflict and distrust, the emphasis must change from merely protecting already-existing democracies to laying the groundwork for a democratic culture. Democracy can only transition from an ideal to a living reality at that point.

Technology must be included into the democratic endeavor in order to do this successfully. Protecting online spaces, thwarting misinformation, and defending digital rights are essential to democratic resilience in today's digital environment. Waves of internet propaganda, cyberwarfare, and fabricated narratives have already been observed in the Iran-Israel confrontation. The protection of freedom and truth in digital areas is an essential part of any genuine 21st-century liberal values commitment.

In the end, promoting democracy is still important, albeit under pressure. Reimagining global democratic collaboration through the Summit for Democracy is an important and promising endeavor, but it will fail unless it confronts the inconsistencies exposed by conflicts such as the one between Israel and Iran. Liberal principles like equality, freedom, respect, and involvement are still crucial. However, they must be maintained not merely in times of peace and amity but particularly during conflict and in the midst of our most uneasy partnerships if they are to be believable and successful.