The recent remarks by Geert Wilders, leader of the right-wing Freedom Party in the Netherlands, asking Donald Trump to “prioritize Iran over Greenland,” reveal more than a political stance—they expose a dangerous logic that has long persisted in global politics: the logic of choosing the target instead of adhering to principle.
The key question is:
If Iran were not in its current situation, would the U.S. threat to seize Greenland be considered legitimate? And if the answer is no, why should changing the “target” justify disregarding fundamental principles?
There is no doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran has a dark record of repression, human rights violations, and state violence. The suffering of the Iranian people is real and undeniable. Yet this bitter reality cannot serve as a license to violate the basic principles of international law—principles meant to apply equally to all, not just to “political enemies.”
On the surface, Wilders’ request appears as a defense of the Iranian people. In reality, however, it is a call to prioritize intervention based on political preference rather than legal or ethical criteria. When a politician says, “Hit Iran instead of Greenland,” he implicitly admits that the matter is not about sovereignty or law, but simply about choosing the more convenient target.
If this logic is justified against Iran today, it could be applied against any country tomorrow—so long as that country is portrayed as “bad enough.” In such a world, there is no order based on law; only an order based on power and opportunity prevails.
A genuine defense of the Iranian people must rely on political, legal, and diplomatic pressure, as well as real support for civil society—not on normalizing threats, occupation, or military intervention. Decades of experience show that freedom is not exported by missiles, and liberation is not achieved by tanks.
If we aim to build a better world, it cannot be founded on contradiction. Principles must apply to all, or, if they are to be set aside, at least there should be the courage to admit that a law-based order no longer exists.
Perhaps the central question remains:
Do we still believe in principles, or only in the targets we choose?
