The idea of Indonesia serving as a mediator in a conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran has sparked debate amongst foreign policy observers. While the proposal reflects Indonesia’s diplomatic aspirations, several analysts say it is way from realistic.
Prominent voices corresponding to Dino Patti Djalal and Made Supriatma query whether Indonesia has the political influence, strategic connections and international leverage needed to play such a job.
The emergence of proposals
Discussion of Indonesia’s potential mediation between the United States, Israel and Iran comes amid escalating tensions within the Middle East within the wake of military attacks and growing geopolitical rivalry.
Indonesian officials have suggested that Jakarta could function a neutral party to assist reduce tensions and open dialogue between opposing sides.
The idea was formulated inside Indonesia’s long-standing foreign policy principle of “freedom and activity”, which emphasizes independence and constructive participation in global affairs.
Throughout its history, Indonesia has at times tried to play a diplomatic role in international conflicts.
However, the proposal quickly attracted skepticism from several foreign policy experts. Critics argue that the political realities surrounding the conflict make it extremely difficult for Indonesia to attain such mediation.
Criticism from Dino Patti Djalal
One of probably the most vocal critics is former Indonesian deputy foreign minister and diplomat Dino Patti Djalal. He described the concept of Indonesia mediating between the United States, Israel and Iran as highly unrealistic.
According to Dino, one among the primary obstacles is the United States’ attitude towards third-party mediation. Historically, Washington rarely accepts mediation when engaged in military operations against an adversary.
In his opinion, the United States, as a world superpower, is unlikely to just accept a mediator who doesn’t have significant leverage over the conflict.
Dino also identified that the present political climate in Washington makes such mediation even less likely. In times of heightened conflict, major powers often prefer to pursue their very own strategic goals relatively than engage external mediators.
Another issue he raised concerns diplomatic relations. Dino noted that Indonesia currently lacks strong diplomatic engagement with Iran at the best political level.
He argued that with no foundation of trust and shut bilateral ties, Indonesia would have difficulty positioning itself as a reputable intermediary between the conflicting parties.
The problem of diplomatic relations
In addition to skepticism from Washington, Dino also highlighted practical diplomatic obstacles regarding Iran and Israel. Successful mediation typically requires strong relationships with all parties involved, which allows the mediator to achieve trust and facilitate negotiations.
However, Indonesia’s diplomatic relations with the countries involved are uneven. Indonesia doesn’t maintain formal diplomatic relations with Israel, which creates an extra barrier to direct involvement of all parties to the conflict.
This complicates any attempts to convene negotiations involving Israel. Moreover, analysts note that Indonesia’s recent diplomatic engagement has not significantly strengthened relations with Iran.
The lack of high-level visits or sustained political dialogue means limited strategic trust between Jakarta and Tehran. Without such trust, mediation efforts are unlikely to achieve acceptance by Iranian leaders.
He aroused Supriatma’s doubts
Political analyst Made Supriatma also expressed doubts about Indonesia’s ability to mediate the conflict.
He argued that Indonesia lacks the political stature, moral authority and immediate strategic interests mandatory to function a mediator within the dispute between the United States and Iran.
According to Made, effective mediation often occurs when the state has a transparent stake within the conflict or has strong influence over the parties involved. In the case of a US-Iran confrontation, Indonesia has no such influence.
He compared the situation to Indonesia’s diplomatic success in helping facilitate negotiations throughout the Cambodian conflict within the late Nineteen Eighties.
Indonesia then played a major role in organizing the Jakarta Informal Meetings, which contributed to the peace process that ultimately ended the conflict in Cambodia.
In the sooner case, Indonesia had clear regional interests and influence in Southeast Asia. For comparison, the conflict within the Middle East involves entities very distant from Indonesia’s immediate geopolitical sphere.
Domestic political considerations
Another factor highlighted by critics is the chance that the mediation proposal is partly driven by domestic political considerations. Some observers consider that the initiative could also be aimed toward demonstrating Indonesia’s diplomatic activity within the international arena.
Made Supriatma suggested that such proposals could serve a symbolic purpose, portraying Indonesia as a proactive actor in international diplomacy, even when the possibilities of success remain limited.
While the intention to advertise peace is widely appreciated, analysts warn that overly ambitious diplomatic initiatives may carry risks. If the proposal fails or is rejected by interested parties, it could undermine Indonesia’s credibility in international diplomacy.
The reality of great power politics
Ultimately, the skepticism expressed by Dino Patti Djalal and Made Supriatma reflects a broader understanding of worldwide power dynamics.
Conflicts involving major powers corresponding to the United States and regional actors corresponding to Iran and Israel are shaped by complex strategic interests, military considerations, and long-standing rivalries.
In such situations, mediation often requires direct influence over the parties or strong international support from major powers or institutions.
Countries that successfully mediate conflicts often have significant geopolitical influence or deep diplomatic relationships with the parties involved.
Without these conditions, Indonesia’s proposal to mediate the US-Israel-Iran conflict faces significant challenges.
While the concept reflects Jakarta’s desire to play a constructive role in global diplomacy, analysts say the realities of international politics make the prospect of successful mediation extremely unlikely.
