Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo has chosen not to criticise the United States for its recent airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Speaking on Tuesday during a press conference, Orpo pointed out that international law often becomes flexible during times of war.
When asked by Yle if Finland considered the airstrikes illegal, Orpo replied, “Finland holds the opinion that it is important that Iran does not continue its nuclear weapons programme.” The airstrikes targeted three nuclear sites in Iran over the past weekend and have since sparked debate among international legal experts.
Martti Koskenniemi, professor emeritus of international law, called the attacks unlawful under the United Nations Charter. According to the Charter, military action is permitted only in cases of self-defence or when responding to an imminent threat. Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre echoed this, stating that all parties must respect international law.
Orpo acknowledged Finland’s strong support for international legal frameworks but stressed that these rules often become secondary during armed conflict. “Unfortunately, situations in war often conflict with these issues of international law,” he said.
Other key figures in Finland’s government, including Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen and President Alexander Stubb, have also avoided openly condemning the United States’ recent military actions.
In contrast, Li Andersson, former education minister and current MEP from the Left party, criticised the Finnish leadership for what she called a double standard. Andersson highlighted that Finland is quick to condemn some violations of international law, yet hesitant when it involves the US or Israel.
This debate adds pressure on Finland’s foreign policy, especially as it navigates its roles within the European Union and NATO. The balancing act reflects the complex nature of international relations when legal principles clash with geopolitical realities.
