On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a large-scale military operation against Iran, involving missile strikes and aerial bombardments. The operation resulted in the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei along with several senior military and political figures. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes targeting US-allied bases and Israel, pushing regional tensions to a breaking point.
The US and Israel contend that Iran's nuclear program poses a threat not only to the region but to global security. They claim Iran was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, making intervention necessary. This follows an earlier strike in June 2025, when the two countries targeted Iran's nuclear facilities to disable its uranium enrichment and weapons production capabilities.
Israel further argues that Iran is not only advancing its missile program but also expanding its regional influence through proxy groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas — a direct threat to Israel's existence. President Donald Trump, for his part, has chosen to project military assertiveness both in domestic electoral politics and on the international stage, seeking to portray America as strong and decisive. The conflict is already exerting pressure on global oil supplies, Middle East investments, and financial markets, as the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly one-third of the world's seaborne oil trade passes — has been placed in jeopardy.
Impact on India
India imports approximately 85 percent of its crude oil requirements. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed amid escalating West Asian tensions, India faces rising oil prices, a widening current account deficit, downward pressure on the rupee, and a potential spike in inflation driven by costlier petrol and diesel. Additionally, approximately eight million Indian workers are employed in Gulf countries — particularly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. Any large-scale repatriation or regional instability could significantly affect India's remittance inflows.
The Imperial Logic
Imperialism represents a stage of capitalism in which monopoly capital achieves dominance, financial capital and the state form a decisive alliance, and aggressive competition for raw materials and markets intensifies. The Trump administration is redefining American foreign policy and national security strategy along these lines. Trump's senior adviser Stephen Miller has recently spoken of a world governed by "strength, force, and power." The global community is receiving Washington's tariff threats not merely as trade policy, but as a tool of geopolitical coercion. America appears to be converting the so-called "rules-based international order" into a "strength-based order."
The Middle East is becoming the central arena for contestation over resources, security, and sovereignty. This signals that, in great-power politics, resources, military strategy, and dominance remain the true priorities — while climate, democracy, and human rights serve largely as rhetorical cover.
The recent American attack on Iran is a naked expression of this imperial logic. It is not a war fought to protect "democracy" or "human rights," but to remove an obstacle to the unimpeded flow of capital. It constitutes an open violation of international law — specifically, Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the sovereignty of any nation. The so-called rules-based global order stands wholly discredited.
This aggression comes at a moment when American global dominance faces serious challenges: the rise of China, the growing role of BRICS nations, the rising confidence of the Global South, and growing questions about the dollar-centric financial system. History shows that a declining hegemon often becomes a more aggressive one.
A Pattern of Intervention
America's record of intervention is well documented. In 1953, it overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh for nationalizing Iran's oil industry and installed a puppet government. In 2003, Iraq was invaded on the false pretext of "weapons of mass destruction," resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction of the state, and the establishment of US control over oil and geopolitics. In 1973, Chile's democratically elected socialist president Salvador Allende was ousted. In 1954, Guatemala's land-reform government was toppled, triggering decades of civil war and massacres. Between 1955 and 1975, millions of Vietnamese civilians perished in a war of American making. These are only a few examples of a recurring pattern: wherever a nation attempts to assert sovereign control over its resources and policies, the United States intervenes.
In his first term, Trump sought to keep America out of foreign entanglements. In his second term, he has repeatedly turned to military force. In the past year alone, the US has bombed four countries in the Middle East — Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen — and two in Africa — Nigeria and Somalia. Trump has issued threats to both adversaries and allies alike. Michael McFaul, former US Ambassador to Russia, has asked whether the American public needs to question whether these military interventions are actually advancing American security, prosperity, or values.
For India, the Iran-US-Israel conflict underscores the urgent need to reconsider the long-term direction of its foreign policy.
---
*With Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Association
Comments