Iran: 'more sinned against than sinned'

Unarguably, the Islamic Republic of Iran has not been an ideal template for a state and good governance. Its state apparatus is geared to an authoritarian system and the method of day to governance is repressive. Both an anathema and galling has been its attitude to human rights, particularly in respect of equality of women. By the metrics of a modern state, Iran is socially retrograde, politically reactionary and economically backward. The fact that it is militarily advanced does not compensate for the shortfalls in the rest of the areas of national endeavours. It has been no wonder that Iran has come up for opprobrium and dislike from most of the countries of the world for its obscurantist policies. 

But to say that Iran is an evil state, bent on aggrandisement against other countries is not only unfair but downright false. Except its rhetorical declaration of destruction of Israel for the latter’s occupation of Palestinian land and articulation of imprecations against America, it has harboured no territorial designs against other countries. Its support to militant groups in the region is based on its concern to protect itself from external aggression, particularly from Israel which is considered as its arch enemy. The hostility towards America is largely because of its unstinted support to that country. If the Palestine state was recognised and allowed to function, Iran’s belligerence towards Israel would have petered out. So will its animosity towards America. 

As a theocratic state Iran does not believe in spreading its ideology across national boundaries and its policies and actions attest to that. But the cause celebre for its sabre rattling against Israel and spewing of fire and brimstone against America viz ending illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel and support of two-nation states by Israel and its main ally America has not materialised so far. Hence Iran’s hostility towards Israel and its main supporter America has continued unabated. But excepting arming and assisting proxies around Israel the regime in Iran has not engaged in acts of war covert and overt. Rather, America and Israel have on many occasions assassinated Iranian civilian scientists and high level military commanders. Israel made surprise attacks against Iran twice in the past, once in 2023 and in June 2025 on a large scale, joined by America later.

The Islamic Republic has been, by and large, a pacifist country and has not waged any offensive war against any country since coming to power in 1979. But it was invaded by Iraq, by all accounts, at the instigation of America in 1980, soon after it overthrew the pro- western and exploitative monarchy of the Shah of Iran. The Iraqi aggression, allegedly abetted by America, continued for long eight years, draining away resources that Iran badly needed to develop its economy and society. It took a heavy toll in terms of human lives, numbering half a million and double that number were injured. The war forced Iran to spend preponderantly in defence industries and that is how it developed cutting age weapons like missiles in a spectacular fashion. The development of the strategic industries was underpinned by the experiences of the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran war that stressed priority on enhancing defensive capabilities. In arming itself with conventional weapons, particularly short and medium range missiles, Iran had primarily its Arab neighbours and Israel as potential adversaries in mind. With normalisation of relations with Arab countries in recent years, the upgrading of defence capabilities by Iran had only Israel in mind.

In developing defence capabilities, Iran relied on conventional weapons alone. It never had nuclear ambition as one of the option and the late Ayatollah swore it as ‘haram’ to develop and possess nuclear bombs. If it was intended to become a nuclear power it was not beyond Iran’s capabilities to become so, given its scientific expertise and advanced stage of uranium enrichment. Its refusal to agree to zero enrichment and handover the enriched uranium stockpile, as has been the demand from Trump administration in recent months, was not because of duplicity and subterfuge. As a proud sovereign state Iran felt it downright humiliating to accede to the peremptory demand from Trump administration to give up development of its peaceful nuclear power programme. A compromise on this was agreed on July 14, 2015 between Iran and America, United Kingdom (UK), France, Russia, China and Germany, with European Union (EU) involved in the talks. The goal was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons while allowing it to maintain a limited civilian nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international economic sanctions. According to the terms of the agreement Iran would enrich uranium up to 3.67 per cent purity (below weapons grade). The agreement also required Iran to reduce its enriched uranium by about 98 per cent. Accordingly, Iran reduced its centrifuges from about 19,000 to roughly 5060 operating machines. In further compliance with the terms of the agreement, called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran agreed that the Fordow nuclear research facility could not enrich uranium and it was converted exclusively for research facilities. Enrichment was allowed to Natanz facility only and this was agreed to by Iran. Moreover, the Arak heavy-water reactor was re-designed to preclude the possibility of producing weapons-grade plutonium. As part of the agreement Iran allowed extensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify compliance.

In return to Iran’s agreement to the terms of the agreement, the UN, America, UK and the EU lifted many economic sanctions, allowing Iran to sell oil abroad and access to global financial systems. On January 16, 2016 sanctions relief started after verification of Iran’s compliance.

The only country that was not satisfied with JCPOA was Israel that wanted to see complete closure of the civilian nuclear programme of Iran so that its plan of dominating the region can become a reality, Iran being the last major power in the region to challenge its hegemonic and expansionist ambition. It worked its way through the Israeli lobby in America (AIPAC) and succeeded in effecting the withdrawal of America from the international agreement when the Republican party won the presidential election in 2016 and the maverick Donald Trump became the president. After re-imposition of sanctions by America under Trump administration JCPOA became a dead letter for two reasons : (1) reluctance of America’s allies in Europe to differ with Trump administration on the scuppering of JCPOA; and (2) the captive global financial system to American dollar that makes economic sanctions by America almost binding on the rest of the world.

The Iran nuclear agreement collapsed not because of non- compliance by Iran or bad faith on its part but because of the unilateral withdrawal by America and reluctance of West European countries to take an independent stand to sustain the JCPOA. Israel won in its hegemonic plan to lord it over in the middle-east, with its map to be re-drawn to fit into the biblical promise of a land of Israelites tribe ‘from Euphrates to the Nile’. As recently as last fortnight, the American ambassador to Israel said in public that it would be alright if that was going to be the case. Though apparently he seemed to speak off the cuff, the ambassador articulated the view of many American political heavyweights who are beholden to the Jewish lobby AIPAC. The ambassador was not reprimanded by Trump, not to speak of being withdrawn. The Republican Party is Israel’s ideological citadel and no one is more enthusiastic in fulfilling Israel’s imperial dream than president Donald Trump whose decision to withdraw from JCPOA in 2016 has set in motion events that culminated in the pre-emptive attack by America and Israel against Iran on February 28 this year. With the war in its eight day (as of March 8) and a ‘anything can happen situation ‘ unfolding in the ongoing war, it is pertinent to analyse what events and policies have led to this armed conflict that can morph into something that humanity dare not speak its name – the Third World War. In the course of this analysis, the role of countries concerned with this catastrophe, threatening to become biblical armageddon, would be explained as well.

The causes and events: The immediate cause is the ‘failure’ of the American-Iran negotiation over nuclear and other issues mediated through the good offices of Oman. This negotiation is a reprise of the negotiation between the two countries held in the middle of last year. Though the denouement of the two negotiations is the same viz surprise attack against Iran even when negotiation was going on, the agenda of negotiation is not the same. Moving the goalpost further, America added two new demands to the one relating to stoppage of uranium enrichment. These are: (a) folding up the ballistic missile programme; and (b) terminating assistance to Iranian proxies in the region. While refusing to accept zero enrichment, which Iran felt to be within its sovereign rights, the Iranian negotiators agreed to reduce uranium enrichment to level below 10. Regarding the other two demands (ballistic missile development and help to proxies), Iran drew the red line, stating those were off the table. Sovereign rights of defence and security were cited as the reason for refusing to discuss those two issues.

The European countries did not object to the withdrawal of America from JCPOA in 2016 without any valid reason, like non-compliance by Iran, which put their countries in an embarrassing as well as untenable position. They were left high and dry as signatories to JCPOA, unable to keep their commitments given to Iran under the agreement. Without formal withdrawal, the allies of America who had signed, reneged on the assurances given to Iran under the agreement, destroying trust in international treaties. They further undermined their credibility by not taking a moral and legal stand when America bombed nuclear sites in Iran in cahoots with Israel in June last year. It was their lack of diplomatic pressure on Trump administration during his first term to abide by international agreements that emboldened president Trump in the second term to unilaterally resurrect the nuclear issue with a broader agenda. Again, they remained silent, when in the midst of negotiation, America staged a pre-emptive strike on February 28 this year against Iran, decapitating their top leaders. The inaction of west European countries stands in stark contrast with their vigorous reactions to president Trump’s attempt to occupy Greenland, betraying double standard. Among international leaders only the secretary general of the United Nations (UN) condemned the pre-emptive strike against Iran and killing of top leaders. The posture of neutrality of European countries in the present armed conflict by not allowing America to use their military bases has been proved short-lived as one European country after another later acquiesced to American pressure to come to its aid. Some European countries have even sent their military assets and armed personnel to the theatre of the American- Israeli and Iran war in the middle-east.

Role of countries: The chronology of events narrated above clearly shows America and Israel as the countries primarily responsible for the current war. There was no provocation or war-like preparation in Iran to justify the pre- emptive war unleashed by America and Israel. While Iran was making concessions on nuclear stations and asserting its sovereign rights to self defence through conventional weapons like ballistic missiles and policy of aligning with foreign like-minded groups, America and Israel were secretly planning for regime change. At first, these two countries tried to achieve the goal of regime change by flooding Iran with money and fifth column to stir up civil upheaval. When this failed causing deaths of thousands, America brought two aircraft carriers and other massive military assets near Iran to bend it to its knees and also to encourage civil unrest once again. The pre-emptive attacks decapitating top Iranian leadership was followed by public exhortation by president Trump and Netanyahu to Iranian civilians to rise up against their government. So far this brazen attempt at incitement of population of Iran has not met with success, either because of patriotism or fear or a combination of both. Trump administration is now reportedly trying to bribe ethnic rebel groups in the periphery of Iran to make land invasion. America and Israel thus stand exposed as blatant aggressors and agent provocateurs. In this macabre spectacle Israel is the real villain of the piece. It is the tail that has wagged the dog and was admitted as much by the American secretary of defence, nay war. Netanyahu’s long cherished dream has been to destroy all major military powers in the middle-east so that the vision of greater Israel becomes a reality. Iraq, Libya, Syria have all been disintegrated following regime change, courtesy its greatest ally America. Only the Islamic Republic of Iran remained standing, defiantly challenging its hegemonic ambition. Now dragging America into the war, Netanyahu’s rhetorical declaration about re-drawing the map of middle-east is tantalisingly close. But Donald Trump is a transactional man. In exchange for this help he expects Netanyahu to present him the prime real estate in Gaza without creating any stumbling bloc. The West European countries and the Arab potentates know this very well. But they are not willing to take up the brief for the down-at-heels Palestinians at the cost of alienating their ring master Donald Trump. Their real politic has no room for sentiment or bite of conscience. If they could remain silent when Israel slaughtered 60 thousand Palestinians in Gaza they can very well look the other way when the hapless Palestinians are deported to ‘beautiful’ Somaliland.

The European countries at first took a moral stand deprecating ‘regime change through bombing from sky’ in Iran and refused American armed forces and planes to use military bases in their territory or in the middle-east. Subsequently, except Spain, all the major west European countries became complicit in the war of aggression against Iran by allowing America to use their military bases on the specious ground of defensive purposes. France and UK have also sent naval ships and fighter jets to the war affected countries in the Gulf ostensibly for ‘defensive purposes’.

As regards Iran, by any reckoning, it is fighting in self defence. Whatever actions they have taken and may take in future come under the rubric of ‘self- defence.’ Iran has not been secretive about targeting American assets in the middle-east and the Gulf countries and made public declarations to the same effect long before the war started. Iran’s response to the devastating war unleashed stealthily against its citizens and civilian infrastructures has been in line with their threats given in advance. Because of this transparency Iran cannot be faulted on the ground of being duplicitous and covert. The closure of Hormuz straits by Iran as a retaliatory measure was also foretold. This act of closing the choke point for shipment of one third of oil supply in the world is part of the asymmetrical war strategy of Iran. So there is nothing unexpected and mischievous about what Iran is doing in response to a war which has not been of its own making. As regards hitting civilian sites and infrastructures in Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries, Iranian authorities in their response has termed those as collateral damages. Common sense tells that Iran would not like to isolate itself from neighbouring countries by deliberately targeting civilian sites. The closure of Hormuz straits within the territorial limits is in keeping with the sovereign rights of Iran.

Arab and Gulf countries have predictably condemned the violation of their sovereignty by Iran’s incursion of their air space and consequent damages by ballistic missiles. Though some of them have threatened to take action against Iran for its ‘attacks’, nothing tangible has taken place in that regard so far.

The outcome: The pre-emptive war started by America and Israel has taken a heavy toll in lives in Iran, numbering over 1,200, including school children. The casualties among Americans are 4 and 12 in Israel. The shelling by Israeli army in southern Lebanon and its capital Beirut has killed over 80 civilians. Destruction of buildings and infrastructures in both Iran and Lebanon have been staggering.

On the economic front the immediate impact has been on prices of crude oil and gas. According to the latest report, prices of both have registered upward trend, with oil jumping to US$90 per barrel compared to $60 before the war. Qatar has totally stopped supply of LNG, impacting immediately on its price. Given the fact that the percentages of imports of oil from the Gulf countries by India, China and Japan are 60, 40 and 75 per cent of their total respectively, the impact on their economies by disruptions in supply chain caused by the war will be enormous. If Gulf countries cannot export oil and gas through Hormuz strait they will not earn petro-dollar and if this continues for long the value of dollar will hit rock bottom causing crash in global stock markets. The collapse of economies will be like a pandemic, hitting America worst as its dollar will lose the dominant role of world’s reserve currency. The longer the war continues greater will be possibility of this financial meltdown happening in America. Time, therefore, is on Iran’s side. If it can hold on fighting, the victory in this asymmetric war will be won.

The prospects: With the involvement of west European countries under cover of the euphemistic ‘defensive’ purposes the war in Iran has already spread beyond the region. The defeat and change of the present regime in strategically located Iran will be such a momentous turning point in the geo-politics of middle-east that other major powers may not remain mute bystanders. With that possibility looming in the horizon, we may be just one step away from the Third World War. If that apocalypse happens, it will be primarily two men and two countries: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, and America and Israel respectively. Western European countries, too, would be responsible for this great human tragedy because of their policy of appeasement of the two rogue governments running a mock, making short shrift of international law and covenants. Iran, in spite of its awful record of human rights violation in the country over decades, will be seen as the classic victim of bullying and pummelling by reckless tyrants.

hasnat.hye5@gmail.com