Yogendra Yadav writes: US, Israel and the age of moral paralysis

Indian Express

5 hours ago

Worldwide reactions to the US attack on Iran demonstrate once again that we live in an age of moral paralysis. This refusal to speak up is not born out of a genuine ambiguity, complexity or confusion. This is fear in the face of capricious power. This pathetic spectacle of morality turned upside down does not affect us all equally. As with every episode of moral equivocation, there are perpetrators of evil and their collaborators who stand to gain. Then there are losers, direct or indirect, and bystanders. As we know from the last episode of global moral paralysis — the failure of European powers in the 1930s to act in time against Adolf Hitler — such abdication comes back to haunt everyone.
Let us try explaining the situation to a 10-year-old child. Here is a state that attacks a distant country on the ground that it is about to develop weapons that are a serious threat to its neighbourhood and to the world. That is simple. She would understand. But she would also ask some questions: Are you sure they are developing such weapons? Is there no one that already possesses such weapons? If so, why would one more country pose a special threat? And why is this country acting on everyone else's behalf?
Now, try answering these questions for her. Minus all the jargon, the simple answers would be something like this.
No, there is no clear evidence that Iran was about to make atom bombs soon. The global inspector of those weapons, the IAEA, does not think Iran is anywhere close to making nuclear weapons. This answer was endorsed by the US Director of National Intelligence in March.
Yes, many countries in the world are in possession of hundreds of atom bombs. Actually, within this region, Israel is already believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons. No, there is no reason to think that the people or leaders of Iran are more dangerous than those of all other countries that have atom bombs.
And no, the US was not authorised by anyone (except perhaps Israel) to act on their behalf. Actually, there are decisions, rules and laws that prohibit any country from doing what the US has done.
The thought experiment of speaking to a child serves to foreground the simple truth that lies buried under expert-speak. It also helps us focus on the real issues, and not distract ourselves with the banal excitement of war or the noise of side stories of oil prices and radiation levels. It invites us to think, to question and to judge.
Since the US attack on Iran's nuclear establishments, just note the double standards of those who scrutinise Iran's minutest deviations from the norms set by the IAEA, but do not notice how the US attack violates UN resolutions and the NPT itself. While there is some attention on whether POTUS may have violated US laws, there is little discussion on how the US action has violated every international law and convention. Remember, the US President had already spoken about 'taking out' (killing) the head of the Iranian state without the context of war. Remember, he had announced a two-week window, and then attacked within two days. Rogue state, would you say? No, POTUS tells us that Iran is the rogue state. Was POTUS not playing a duplicitous game by inviting Iran to negotiations? No, the US Secretary of State has actually accused Iran of entering into 'fake negotiations' ahead of the strikes! We are in a make-believe world where 'fair is foul, and foul is fair'.
If the US is the bully trying to cloak its aggression, the rest of the world is a study in moral bankruptcy. French President Emmanuel Macron calls upon Iran, yes, the country that was just attacked, 'to exercise utmost restraint in this dangerous context to allow a return to the diplomatic path'. If you thought he was conservative, here is the progressive Labour Party leader and UK PM Keir Starmer, in a distinctly imperial tone: 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat… We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis.' Besides the hypocrisy of the idea of 'non-proliferation' and the double standards implicit in the NPT, there is something pathetic about shifting the onus of negotiations on the victim. It was left to Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, to point out that he was negotiating with the EU till the day before and ask: 'How can Iran return to something it never left?' After Gaza and Iran, one must wonder if all the sweet talk of liberalism and pluralism that emanates from Europe is a cover for White supremacism.
If there is a much-needed note of caution, as in the statements from many of Iran's neighbours, it is not out of any real concern or ability to take a stand. It reflects a desperate need to balance conflicting interests: The need to please the US and persist with its military base on the one hand and the desire to escape Iranian retaliation and their citizens' ire for letting down a Muslim country on the other. It says something about the nature of our times that the most amoral powers, Russia and China (besides the comic U-turn by Pakistan), themselves implicated in acts of aggression and expansion, can call out the US attack for what it is and condemn it in no uncertain terms.
When the entire world is struck with moral paralysis, should we be surprised that India, too, has belittled itself? We should, because we were told that, over the past decade, India had arrived on the global stage, that India now had an independent voice, sans any camp or ideology. So far in this global redefining moment, India has been a bystander. No one seems to think that the country that was once seen to be the voice of the Global South matters in this instance. Worse, we have let down Iran, an old ally that stood with us in difficult times and went out of its way to evacuate our stranded citizens. All we know is that the President of Iran called our Prime Minister, who expressed 'deep concern at the recent escalations' and reiterated a call for 'de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy'. No mention of the US strikes. Forget any 'condemnation', there was no 'regret' or call for 'ceasefire' in the PM's statement. That is perhaps too much to expect from a government that could not join the UN resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza.
We are told that this is the new 'realism', a smart approach to advance our national interest, unconstrained by moralism. History tells us otherwise. Too-clever-by-half and momentary pursuits of selfish interest get you the worst of both worlds: You don't get respect, nor do you protect your interests. Just replace the US and Iran with China and India in an imaginary future, and you understand the lesson of history: You need friends and some principles to survive in the real world. The rich and the powerful can afford moral paralysis, at least for some time. We can't.
The writer is member, Swaraj India, and national convenor of Bharat Jodo Abhiyaan. Views are personal