Latest news with #SujataAshwarya
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Israel's strike on Iran marks a point of no return
Written by Sujata Ashwarya In the early hours of June 13, 2025, Israel launched a wave of coordinated strikes on Iranian military and nuclear facilities in what it named Operation Rising Lion. Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir called it 'a fight to preserve our existence,' declaring that the country had reached 'a point of no return.' According to the Israeli military, the operation was a pre-emptive measure against an immediate and growing threat to its national security. The strikes targeted what Israel described as the heart of Iran's nuclear programme. Six nuclear scientists were reportedly killed, along with Hossein Salami, head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Iran responded with over 100 drones aimed at Israeli territory, most of which were intercepted before causing damage. A state of emergency was declared as Israeli air defences engaged across multiple fronts. Tehran condemned the strikes, describing them as acts of aggression and placing responsibility on both Israel and the United States. Iran's foreign ministry warned that its armed forces would respond in a manner and at a time of their choosing. While distancing itself from the strikes, US President Donald Trump reiterated that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb.' Washington, currently engaged in fresh nuclear negotiations with Tehran, denied any involvement. The timing of the attack is not incidental. Talks aimed at reviving the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) have been underway, but Israel has consistently viewed the agreement as flawed and vulnerable to evasion. Iranian tactics, combined with steady nuclear advancements, have reinforced the Israeli belief that diplomacy alone cannot prevent Tehran from reaching weapons capability. The underlying Israeli strategy – developed over the past decade and often referred to as the 'war between wars' – took shape under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has focused on degrading adversary capabilities through covert, surgical actions that stop short of full-scale conflict. Since at least 2015, Israel has carried out a sustained, largely undeclared campaign against Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure. This has included cyberattacks on key facilities like Natanz, the assassination of senior scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the extraction of nuclear archives from Tehran, and numerous acts of physical sabotage across Iranian sites. The operational footprint has extended beyond Iran's borders, with hundreds of Israeli airstrikes targeting IRGC convoys and infrastructure in Syria, and intelligence operations reported in Lebanon and Iraq. Operation Rising Lion represents a departure from the shadows. The scale, coordination, and precision of the strikes suggest not only advanced planning but also deep penetration of Iranian security networks. While Gulf Arab states have remained silent, their longstanding concerns about Iran's regional ambitions, proxy militias, and potential nuclear breakout are well documented. Quiet acquiescence, if not active cooperation, is likely. For Israel, the issue is existential. The country's small territorial size and lack of strategic depth make it highly vulnerable to any shift in the regional balance of power. Iran's ideological posture, combined with its support for hostile proxies, amplifies the threat perception. Israeli defence planners view any move towards nuclear parity as a fundamental breakdown of deterrence. Iran, on the other hand, has built an asymmetric arsenal focused on missile and drone capabilities. After the April 2024 Israeli strike on its consulate in Damascus, which killed IRGC commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi, Tehran responded with its first-ever direct strike from Iranian soil. The unprecedented barrage of drones and missiles was mostly intercepted but signalled a turning point: A shift from proxy warfare to open confrontation. Nevertheless, a full-blown war remains unlikely. Hezbollah's capabilities have diminished, the Houthis have been weakened by international strikes, and Syria is now under a post-Assad leadership with no ideological alignment to Tehran or meaningful influence in the region's sectarian landscape. No major power appears prepared to risk wider conflict. For many Arab states, the prospect of a nuclear Iran is far more unsettling than Israeli assertiveness. Even India, which has expressed concern and is closely monitoring the situation, may quietly register the strategic implications of the strikes. With nuclear-armed neighbours on both its western and eastern flanks, the prospect of a militarily assertive and nuclear-capable Iran would understandably raise regional stability concerns. At the same time, New Delhi will be cautious about any impact on its investments in Chabahar and broader regional equities. The strikes of June 13 should be seen not only as a military manoeuvre but as the result of a long-unfolding strategic impasse. Since Iran's undeclared enrichment activities were exposed in the early 2000s, efforts to restrain its programme have relied heavily on diplomacy and economic pressure. Yet Iran's steady technical gains, regional interventions, and ambiguous posture have outpaced international resolve. For Israel, deterrence is no longer an abstract posture — it must be actively maintained. What Operation Rising Lion reveals is a changing security calculus. West Asia's balance of power is no longer being shaped solely at the negotiating table. It is increasingly defined by precise, kinetic actions that seek to enforce red lines before they are breached. Whether that recalibration brings greater stability or deeper volatility remains to be seen. The writer is a Professor in the Centre for West Asian Studies [Middle Eastern], Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
Indian Express
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
As Gaza burns, the moral foundation of international support for Israel has begun to crack
Written by Sujata Ashwarya For decades, Israel has relied on the political cover of its closest allies, the United States, Britain, France, Canada, and Germany, during its periodic military operations in the Gaza Strip. These offensives were often described by Israeli military officials as 'mowing the grass,' a cynical phrase implying that occasional large-scale strikes are necessary to keep Hamas's strength in check. But as Gaza smoulders under one of the most destructive military campaigns in recent history, the moral and political foundations of international support to Israel are beginning to crack. In a rare joint statement last week, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney condemned Israel's ongoing assault on Gaza as 'wholly disproportionate'. They criticised the continued blockade of humanitarian aid, denounced incendiary statements by members of Netanyahu's cabinet, and warned that Israel's actions 'will have consequences'. Britain went further, suspending free-trade negotiations with Israel and imposing sanctions on individuals linked to illegal settlement activity in the West Bank. While these leaders reaffirmed Israel's right to defend itself, especially after Hamas's brutal attack on October 7, 2023, which left 1,200 Israelis dead and more than 250 taken hostage, they stopped short of offering unconditional backing. Instead, their joint statement voiced support for US-led ceasefire efforts and reaffirmed a commitment to recognising a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution. It is a significant shift. For years, these countries have shielded Israel diplomatically, even as the humanitarian toll of its military operations raised questions. But the current war has crossed a threshold. Since Israel started its offensive after October 7 (which resumed this March after a brief, fragile ceasefire in January), over 53,900 Palestinians, many of them civilians, have been killed, according to Gaza's health authorities. Entire neighbourhoods have been flattened. Hospitals, schools, and water treatment plants lie in ruins. Gaza has also faced a complete electricity blackout, when Israel cut off supplies paid for by the Palestinian Authority, shutting down the territory's only power plant. Most of Gaza's population has been displaced, and hunger is now being used as a weapon, with medical aid and food supplies blocked at border crossings. The destruction has prompted not only political backlash but also a deeper reckoning with the assumptions that have guided international policy since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. To understand how we got here, we must revisit that pivotal year. After Hamas's landslide victory in the January 2006 Palestinian Legislative Council elections, a vote encouraged at the time by international actors, most of the world turned its back. The group's refusal to meet the Quartet's conditions, including recognising Israel and honouring previous peace agreements, led to sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Hamas's efforts to share power with Fatah through a national unity government failed amid rising tensions and violence. By June 2007, after a brief but brutal civil conflict in Gaza, Hamas had taken control of the Strip, expelling Fatah officials and severing the Palestinian polity in two. This rupture reflected a deeper ideological divide within Palestinian society: Between those who believed in state-building and negotiations, and those who saw resistance as the only viable path under occupation and siege. Fatah, with its long-standing ties to international diplomacy and institutions, retained control of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Hamas, cast out but not broken, dug into Gaza, and for many Palestinians, continued to embody justice and resistance. Had the international community responded differently, recognising the legitimacy of Hamas's electoral win and engaging politically instead of isolating Gaza, the present conflict might have followed another path. But the years since have brought repeated cycles of siege and devastating violence. Each time, international actors called for restraint, Gaza was bombed back into deeper despair. What makes this moment different is not just how vast the destruction is, but how deeply and clearly disillusioned the world has become. The idea that Israel's actions can be reduced to tactical containment – 'mowing the grass' – no longer holds. The destruction of civilian infrastructure and thousands of deaths are increasingly seen not as unfortunate side effects but as deliberate elements of a military strategy aimed at remaking Gaza by erasing Palestinian identity through force. And now, even Israel's closest allies are asking whether such a strategy is justifiable. They are also beginning to acknowledge what has long been denied: That any future political settlement will have to reckon with Hamas, not simply as a military problem to be eliminated, but as a political force rooted in the lived reality of Palestinians. The West's alliance with Israel is not broken, but it is strained. And as Western leaders take hesitant steps toward accountability and recognition of Palestinian rights, they face a critical choice. Will they continue to shield Israel as it doubles down on a war with no clear end? Or will they finally recognise that peace cannot be built on rubble, and that political engagement, not just military dominance, is the only path forward? The writer is Professor at the Centre for West Asian Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
