Context

• On June 13, 2025, a unilateral Israeli strike on Iranian territory once again underscored the perils of militarism devoid of accountability or international consensus.
• This development has not only imperilled regional stability in West Asia but also threatens to unravel ongoing diplomatic overtures between Iran and the United States.
• As global powers stand at a crossroads between confrontation and conciliation, it becomes vital to examine the motivations behind such aggression, the hypocrisies that often accompany it, and the broader implications for international peace and India’s role on the global stage.

A Dangerous Escalation: The Israeli Strike on Iran

• The recent Israeli military action on Iranian soil has drawn widespread condemnation, which characterised the strike as unlawful, escalatory, and heedless of civilian lives.
• Coming at a moment when Iran and the U.S. were making tentative progress in reviving diplomatic ties, with five rounds of negotiations already completed in 2025 and a sixth anticipated, the attack appears especially ill-timed and disruptive.
• What further compounds the recklessness of this strike is the fact that the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, publicly confirmed in March 2025 that Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
• Her testimony reaffirmed that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had not authorized any such activity since 2003.
• Thus, Israel’s military aggression appears to be not only premature but also based on disputed premises, threatening to derail promising diplomatic avenues.

The Politics of Escalation and US Complicity

• The Netanyahu Government and the Politics of Escalation
  • To understand the Israeli posture, it is essential to examine the ideological and political trajectory of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
  • Characterised by alliances with ultra-nationalist factions, aggressive settlement expansion, and a clear departure from the two-state solution, Netanyahu’s leadership has consistently undermined peace in the region.
  • Historically, Netanyahu's role in fanning right-wing extremism is well-documented, with indirect links to the environment of hostility.
  • It led to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination in 1995, a turning point that derailed hopes for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  • The current attack on Iran is consistent with this broader pattern of choosing escalation over engagement.
• The Complicity of US Leadership
  • The complicity of U.S. leadership, particularly President Donald Trump, has further exacerbated the situation.
  • Despite past criticism of America’s military interventions and the influence of the military-industrial complex, President Trump’s June 17 statement falsely alleging Iran’s nuclear ambitions contradicts his own intelligence apparatus.
  • This abandonment of factual analysis in favour of alarmist rhetoric mirrors the misinformation that led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq and undermines the credibility of diplomatic engagement.

Nuclear Hypocrisy and Regional Double Standards

• Israel's preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear potential rests on a core strategic anxiety, but it is also fraught with double standards.
• As a clandestine nuclear power, Israel has never subjected itself to international non-proliferation treaties, even as it preaches the dangers of nuclearization to others.
• In contrast, Iran remains a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and had committed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015, agreeing to verifiable restrictions on its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.
• The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 undid years of patient diplomacy and destabilised not only the region but also vital economic interests for other nations, including India.
• The reimposition of sanctions has hindered major Indian projects such as the International North-South Transport Corridor and the development of Chabahar Port, critical ventures for regional connectivity and energy security.

The Gaza Catastrophe, India’s Silence, Responsibility and Strategic Interests

• The Gaza Catastrophe and India’s Silence
  • India’s current diplomatic silence is particularly glaring in the context of Israel’s ongoing campaign in Gaza.
  • The humanitarian situation in Gaza is dire, with famine looming and civilian suffering escalating by the day.
  • New Delhi’s reluctance to voice concern or advocate for the two-state solution marks a troubling departure from India’s principled stand in global affairs.
  • This shift reflects not only a strategic miscalculation but also a moral abdication.
• India's Diplomatic Responsibility and Strategic Interests
  • Iran is not a distant actor in Indian foreign policy, it is a nation with which India shares deep historical, civilisational, and strategic ties.
  • From backing India on the Kashmir issue in 1994 to developing bilateral trade and energy partnerships, Iran has often stood as a reliable ally.
  • In contrast, the Imperial State of Iran had previously aligned more closely with Pakistan, making the Islamic Republic’s support even more significant.
  • At the same time, India has cultivated strong relations with Israel, especially in the fields of defence and technology.
  • This unique positioning gives India both the moral responsibility and the diplomatic leverage to act as a credible mediator in the region.
  • With lakhs of Indian citizens working in West Asia, regional peace is not merely a matter of foreign policy, it is a national interest.

The Way Forward: A Call for Moral and Diplomatic Leadership

• The unfolding crisis in West Asia is a critical test of the international community’s commitment to peace, justice, and the rule of law.
• It is also a moment of reckoning for India’s foreign policy; as a nation historically aligned with non-alignment, peace-building, and global justice, India must reclaim its moral voice and actively work toward de-escalation in the region.
• India must leverage its unique relationships with both Iran and Israel to promote dialogue, condemn disproportionate violence, and support a return to multilateral diplomacy.
• The stakes are too high, for the region, for global stability, and for India’s own credibility on the world stage. It is not too late to choose the path of principle, and India must lead the way.

Conclusion

• Unilateral military actions, like Israel's strike on Iran, destabilise diplomatic progress and undermine regional peace efforts, especially when based on disputed or false premises.
• New Delhi’s current silence erodes its moral credibility; a principled stand promoting de-escalation, humanitarian protection, and the two-state solution is both urgent and necessary.
• India, with its historical ties to both Iran and Israel, holds a unique position to mediate and must reclaim its traditional role as a voice for peace, balance, and justice in global affairs.