President Prabowo Subianto is prepared to evaluate Indonesia's membership in the Belt of Peace initiative following Israeli strikes on Iran, signaling what could become Indonesia's most dramatic foreign policy pivot in decades.
The Belt of Peace, a U.S.-backed security framework aimed at de-escalating regional tensions, now faces potential fracture as Indonesia—one of its key regional anchors—considers withdrawal in response to the escalating Middle East conflict. The move would represent a sharp departure from Indonesia's traditionally cautious foreign policy, which has emphasized non-alignment and diplomatic engagement over confrontational positioning.
The potential withdrawal reflects the tension at the heart of Prabowo's foreign policy: balancing Indonesia's need for Western investment and technology with its identity as the world's largest Muslim-majority nation and its solidarity with the Islamic world. Israeli strikes on Iran have generated intense domestic pressure within Indonesia, with Islamic organizations and student groups demanding stronger government action beyond rhetorical condemnation.
For ASEAN, an Indonesian withdrawal from the Belt of Peace could complicate the bloc's already difficult efforts to maintain unity on Middle Eastern issues. Indonesia has historically served as ASEAN's voice on Islamic world matters, leveraging its demographic weight and democratic credentials to shape regional positions. A dramatic pivot away from U.S.-backed initiatives could create fissures within ASEAN between members like Singapore and Vietnam, which maintain closer security ties to Washington, and those like Indonesia and Malaysia, where domestic Islamic constituencies exert greater influence on foreign policy.
In Indonesia, as across archipelagic democracies, unity in diversity requires constant negotiation across islands, ethnicities, and beliefs—and now, across competing visions of Indonesia's role in a multipolar world order. The Belt of Peace evaluation occurs as Prabowo simultaneously courts Chinese investment in infrastructure projects, seeks deeper defense cooperation with Russia, and maintains military-to-military ties with the United States—a balancing act that reflects both Indonesia's pragmatism and the complexity of its strategic environment.
What remains unclear is whether Prabowo's "evaluation" represents genuine intent to withdraw or a negotiating tactic designed to signal displeasure while preserving options. Indonesian diplomacy often operates through such ambiguity, allowing space for face-saving retreats or escalation depending on how situations evolve. The coming weeks will reveal whether this represents a fundamental shift in Indonesia's foreign policy orientation or a temporary response to domestic political pressures that will moderate once the immediate crisis passes.
