Dear Editor,

I read with concern the recent letter titled ‘Moral clarity on Iran’, published in the Jamaica Observer on March 5, 2026.

While the author frames the discussion as a question of moral responsibility, the argument, in my opinion, dangerously applies a might-makes-right logic selectively, which, if universally applied, would make small nations like Jamaica extremely vulnerable.

The claim that Iran is oppressive does not automatically justify foreign bombing or invasion. Sovereignty and international law exist to protect nations, especially smaller states, from the arbitrary exercise of power. If such logic were applied globally, Jamaica could find itself at the mercy of any stronger nation claiming moral authority to intervene.

Similarly, the assertion that Iran is a “sponsor of terrorism” is selectively applied. For decades the United States has armed, supported, and installed authoritarian regimes across Latin America, contributing to repression and violence. Yet no one seriously argues that such actions warrant bombing or invasion of the US. This asymmetry highlights the selective nature of moral judgment in global politics.

The author’s criticism of Western intellectuals also fails to acknowledge that Western governments routinely support authoritarian or Islamist regimes when convenient for strategic interests. Recent support by the United States and Israel for factions in Syria demonstrates that selective outrage, rather than consistent moral principle, drives these narratives.

Further, the claim that the world has tolerated Iran is misleading. Iran has endured decades of sanctions, targeted assassinations of scientists and military leaders, cyber attacks, and occasional bombings. Far from being ignored, Iran has been subjected to sustained international pressure and intervention, often with lethal consequences.

Finally, the suggestion that “confronting the regime may be necessary” risks legitimising a doctrine of moral realism backed by force, a philosophy that would place small nations like Jamaica in existential danger. If the standard of intervention is power plus moral judgment, the international system becomes one in which might decides right, not law.

Moral clarity requires consistency. It demands that we apply the same principles to all states, regardless of size or power. For Jamaica and other small nations, the protection of sovereignty, adherence to international law, and non-intervention are not mere ideals, they are essential for survival.

Javon Moatt

javonmoatt@gmail.com