The widely anticipated yet unprovoked attack on Iran on March 1 by the United States and Israel has drawn sharp criticism from several quarters around the world. Reports indicate that the strikes have resulted in significant civilian casualties, including 165 elementary school girls, 20 female volleyball players, and many other civilians.
The escalation was not entirely unexpected, as military action against Iran had been discussed in strategic and policy circles in both the United States and Israel since the mid-1990s. What has drawn attention, however, is that Iran continues to resist despite the killing of several of its leaders, including its spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei and members of his family, as well as senior military commanders.
Public opinion in the United States appears divided over the military action. Some reports suggest that only a minority of Americans support the government’s decision to launch the operation, reportedly referred to in some circles as Operation Epstein Furious. Meanwhile, Iran has responded by targeting military assets linked to the United States and its allies across West Asia, while the US and Israel continue their strikes. Congressman Thomas Massie of Donald Trump’s Republican Party has publicly questioned the rationale behind the military campaign, remarking that bombing a country on the other side of the globe will not make domestic controversies, such as the Epstein files, disappear.
There have also been criticisms of Iran’s own internal policies in recent years. Questions were raised about the role of Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranian leadership during the anti-hijab protests led by Iranian women a few years ago, as well as during more recent protests against the country’s deteriorating economic conditions. On both occasions, the government responded with strong measures to suppress dissent. Nevertheless, the question of political change in Iran ultimately rests with the Iranian people themselves. External intervention by foreign powers is unlikely to be viewed favourably by a population currently focused primarily on its immediate survival amid escalating conflict.
For India, the developments raise questions about the country’s diplomatic positioning. Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Israel shortly before the escalation, addressing the Israeli parliament, where some members of the opposition reportedly walked out during his speech. Critics argue that India’s growing defence cooperation with Israel, including projects involving the Adani Group and Elbit Systems—such as the Hermes drone systems being manufactured in Hyderabad—may be influencing aspects of India’s foreign policy engagement.
Concerns have also been raised about India’s broader economic diplomacy. The government has entered into trade arrangements with the United States that some observers consider unfavourable, particularly in light of a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court limiting the authority of the executive branch to impose tariffs. This has raised questions about the long-term viability of certain trade commitments. It also prompts reflection on the role played by India’s economic ministries and diplomatic missions abroad in assessing such developments and advising policymakers accordingly.
Another aspect drawing attention is India’s labour engagement with Israel. Following recent agreements, approximately 50,000 Indian workers are reportedly being prepared for employment in Israel. While labour migration has long been a feature of the Indian economy, critics argue that the current arrangements risk placing Indian workers in vulnerable positions, particularly if they are recruited as skilled workers but eventually employed as unskilled labourers after arrival.
Developments in global trade are also creating new challenges. The United States has reportedly explored tariff-free garment imports from Bangladesh on the condition that Bangladesh purchases American cotton instead of Indian cotton. Such arrangements could further limit India’s export opportunities. At the same time, reports indicate that Israeli airstrikes have continued against infrastructure targets in Tehran, including facilities such as the Gandhi Hospital.
The broader geopolitical implications of the conflict also merit attention. The United States has historically been involved in regime-change efforts in several countries, including interventions that affected leaders such as Salvador Allende and Saddam Hussein. Critics argue that such precedents should prompt countries like India to reflect carefully on their own strategic autonomy and long-term security interests.
The ongoing conflict could have wider regional consequences. With groups such as Yemen’s Houthis and Hezbollah reportedly aligning themselves with Iran, the confrontation risks expanding into a larger regional conflict. There are already reports of protests across parts of West Asia and South Asia. In Pakistan, demonstrations linked to the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei have reportedly resulted in casualties near the US Consulate in Karachi. Tensions are also rising in other sensitive regions, including Kashmir, while protests have been reported among Shia communities in Iraq.
In this context, India faces an important strategic choice. Since 2014, critics have argued that the government’s foreign policy has often appeared overly aligned with major global powers while simultaneously attempting to maintain strategic flexibility. India had earlier reduced its imports of Russian oil under pressure from the United States but is now reportedly seeking increased supplies from Russia amid concerns over a potential oil crisis triggered by the conflict.
India’s response to the present crisis has also drawn debate. While remaining relatively restrained in its reaction to the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran, the government has criticised certain retaliatory actions by Iran targeting US interests in Saudi Arabia. Such responses have prompted discussion about whether India should adopt a more balanced and independent position.
The actions of the United States and Israel in Iran have been criticised in several quarters, and the situation continues to evolve rapidly. If the conflict widens further, it could potentially destabilise large parts of West Asia and beyond.
In this situation, India’s long-term interests may lie in reaffirming its strategic autonomy and sovereign decision-making. Critics argue that the country must avoid appearing subordinate to external geopolitical pressures and instead pursue a foreign policy guided primarily by its own national interests and principles.
The time has therefore come for a serious national debate on India’s foreign policy direction. If meaningful changes cannot be achieved within the framework of existing policies, then broader political change may also become part of the public conversation.
---
Venkatesh Narayanan is an IT professional, Sandeep Pandey is Secretary General of the Socialist Party (India)
Comments