Copyright infringement not intended

Source: Indian Express

Context

On June 21, 2025, the US attacked Iran's nuclear facilities with missiles before they even got ready. They said it was a strategic necessity.  The attack means that the world will no longer hold back, and anticipatory warfare will become more common.

Historical Background of Iran-Israel Conflict

• When you look at history, the conflict between Israel and Iran can be traced back to the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. This revolution took a theocratic, anti-Israel stance. With the help of allies like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias, Iran has been putting pressure on Israel to avoid a direct war with Israel. 
• Israel has hit nuclear sites in Iraq and Syria before, but Iran is a bigger and more dangerous threat. Because it is becoming a bigger threat, many Sunni Arab countries have made peace with Israel through the Abraham Accords, which has put the Palestine issue on hold.

Iran-Israeli War Getting Worse

• The IAEA Resolution says that Iran can be found not to be following the 1974 safeguards agreement. This was because of the enriched uranium that was found in places that weren't supposed to have it. 
• There are several things that have caused things to get worse between Iran and Israel right now:
• Nuclear Talks Break Down: When talks between the US and Iran broke down, Israel saw this as Tehran taking advantage of the diplomatic rift.
• Direct Action: Israel chose to attack Iranian targets directly instead of through proxies because it thought that attacks that were done indirectly would not work.
• Israel's internal politics: Prime Minister Netanyahu took advantage of the security concerns to delay elections and strengthen his hold on power.

Shift from Global Restraint to First Strike Mentality

• The international conflict resolution framework is witnessing a significant erosion of norms, with long-standing principles such as UN resolutions, sovereignty, non-aggression, and deterrence being increasingly undermined by expediency and strategic interests.

Iraq as a Cautionary Tale (2003)

• The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified by a false claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).
  
  
• The invasion led to mass destruction, high civilian casualties, and regional destabilisation.
  
  
• Rather than acting as a deterrent to future preemptive actions, this episode has become a template for similar interventions, with lessons from Iraq largely ignored.

Iran: From Shadow War to Open Conflict

• The current U.S.-Iran tensions represent a rupture in conventional engagement models.
  
  
• Iran's actions over the years have included:
  
  
• Incremental nuclear advancements, particularly breaching uranium enrichment limits.
  
  
• Shadow warfare, such as the assassination of nuclear scientists, cyberattacks, and covert sabotage operations.
  
  
• Proxy battles involving actors like the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militias targeting U.S. bases.

Paradigm Shift in U.S. Strategy

• The recent direct U.S. military strike on Iranian targets marks a major transition from covert operations to open, high-stakes warfare.
  
  
• This reflects a first-strike mentality, breaking away from previous models of strategic restraint, and potentially escalating regional conflict.
  
  

Implications for global powers:

Country/Region	Implications
United States	- Gains tactical edge but risks strategic overstretch. - Stretched between Middle Eastern instability and Indo-Pacific priorities. - Diplomatic leverage weakens, especially against China. - High political risks amid inflation and election-year pressures.
Iran	- Uses strikes to rally nationalist sentiment. - Promotes a siege mentality. - IRGC likely to activate proxies like Hezbollah and Houthis. - Despite strikes, nuclear knowledge remains intact.
Israel	- Achieves strategic hit on Iran’s nuclear sites. - Risks retaliation, especially through Hezbollah. - Potential for broader regional conflict.
Gulf States	- Prefer containment of Iran without provocation. - Fear regional spillover and internal instability. - Prioritise stability over escalation.
India	- Faces dual challenge: 1. Dependence on Gulf oil. 2. Need to possibly evacuate expatriate population from conflict zones.
Pakistan	- Torn between public support for Iran and economic reliance on the U.S.. - Risk of unrest in Balochistan, which borders Iran.

What the Iran-Israel war means for India

• Risks for the Diaspora:  Since there are almost 8 million Indians living in West Asia, their safety is very important, especially if they need to leave.
• Risks to energy security: Over 60% of India's crude oil imports go through the Strait of Hormuz. If there is a problem, there could be big changes in supply and price increases.
• Diplomatic Balancing Act: India needs to be very careful to keep its strategic partnerships with both Israel and Iran while navigating a world of rising sanctions and shifting geopolitical alliances.

Practice Question: Q. The recent US strike on Iran marks a shift from deterrence to preemption. Examine the implications of this trend and suggest measures to safeguard international stability.