By Kavya Dubey

New Delhi [India], June 29 (ANI): The world paused on June 13 when Israel targeted major military and nuclear facilities, and crucial personalities in Iran as it launched a series of attacks to disempower the West Asian country.

The involvement of the Houthis of Yemen and the US in this high-tension conflict stopped short of a nuclear apocalypse--but this was not entirely unexpected. Some saw this coming.

Supporting Israel, the US went ahead and struck three key nuclear sites in Iran on the ninth day of the military aggression. In support of Iran, the Houthis read this as a 'declaration of war' and called off their ceasefire with the US. This escalation was a result of the searing animosity between the arch rivals of West Asia--Iran, for its resistance to Western influence, and Israel, for the challenge to its hegemony.

So, Israel categorically intends to fracture Iran's nuclear capabilities. But what does this mean for the world at large to strike down nuclear facilities in acts of war--instead of pushing for a 'no first use policy' like India?

Waiel Awwad, Syria-born veteran international journalist and an expert on Middle East, in conversation with ANI, explained that Israel--a nuclear state, a state that is not a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that does not allow the mandatory inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and has more than 90 nuclear warheads--attacks a country that is declared to have no nuclear bombs according to agencies, then 'it's a clear indication that it is not the nuclear we are looking at,' but the regime in Iran that is targeted 'on the pretext of the nuclear [weapons],' he said.

It is widely reported that Israel is going through a situation internally. Does that necessitate Israel to engage in external aggression to the extent of targeting Iran in a predictable move? The conspicuously active involvement of the US in the Israel-Iran conflict points to a larger agenda.

'Israelis themselves are against any kind of war, they don't want him [Netanyahu] to go for war. Even the public opinions in the US and Israel show that,' said Awwad, as he quoted former US President Bill Clinton from a recent interview: 'Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way, he can stay in office forever--he's been there for last 20 years.'

Awwad seconded this, adding that the Israeli Prime Minister is acting for his survival and to 'serve his own political career.' Pertinently, he mentioned with reference to the US' economy and its dependence on arms trade: 'Somebody put it for me, if the US does not go to war every 10 years, they will have a civil war inside the United States--look at their history.'

He emphasised that 'If you are friendly with the United States, you would remain in their sphere of influence and you are safe. But the moment you start having your sovereign independence, you will be attacked, and that is what happened in Iran,' as he mentioned similar examples of Iraq and Libya.

In 1953, the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran was toppled by the US- and West-backed forces. 'It's a clear indication that America wanted to bring instability and have total control over their oil, as most of the revenue from Iran's oil was going to Britain.'

PM Mossadegh had nationalised Iran's oil industry to reclaim sovereignty from British control. After he was ousted, monarch Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's reign was significantly marked by US influence over Iran. While American entities acquired considerable control over their oil production as the US bagged 40 per cent profits, Iran aligned with the West while acting as a counterweight to the Soviet Union. The western influence was significantly visible in Iranian society to the point of marking it as an era in the country's history.

People eventually revolted against the Shah as the Western forces were involved internally in Iran. The uprising in 1979 (the Islamic Revolution) marked the end of the Shah's rule and Iran's monarchy, replacing the Imperial State of Iran with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Cleric Ruhollah Khomeini became the new head of state.

'The religious leaders took advantage of this revolt and took the lead. So, America imposed sanctions on Iran and seized their assets,' said Awwad, adding, 'All the sanctions on Iran have nothing to do with the American interests, by the way, it is because of the Israeli interest. Because America has two interests in the West Asia: Oil and gas/natural resources, and to make sure that the dominance of Israel prevails and continues over the region' to further its own interest.

With the Revolution in Iran, the new establishment replaced the embassy of Israel with the embassy of Palestine in support of their cause. This was when Iran took an anti-Israel stand, and 'in the same fashion, Israel took an anti-Iran stand.'

Iran has a civilisational history and its present plentifully draws from it, making it a strong contender for hegemony--the persistent aspiration of Israel in the Middle East and the US in the world in general. In the present context, 'The attack on Iran is due to its stand against Israel and the US,' Awwad said.

'Iran knew that a day would come when America and the West would take on it, because look at the region--it is destroyed totally from Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq--who's left in West Asia? The only country left in West Asia is Iran. And once you remove the Iranian government from power, all its allies--India, Russia, China will have great impact and ramifications on oil security, food security, because once America and the West take control, they will conquer the whole of West Asia,' Awwad asserted.

Additionally, the West Asia expert highlighted the tendency of the US of 'using terrorism as a tool to achieve political objectives--they tried it in Afghanistan, they tried it in Libya, Syria, Iraq. When America goes to war, terrorists appear in the region. America wanted to give it a religious tag, along with the Israelis, that this has to do with religion, so they attack one country after another, and whole region is under turmoil. Their objectives are far more than what meets the eye,' he concluded.

Given the situation between Iran and Israel, and the active participation of the US and the dynamics discussed herewith, does India face any risk in taking any kind of stand that would amount to going against Israel, and in turn, against the US?

American scholar and South Asia expert Michael Kugelman, in an email interview with ANI, clarified that 'There's no risk of that at the moment. Both India and the US have strong partnerships with Israel. And yet at the same time, Washington and New Delhi both made clear that they strongly supported de-escalation.'

However, 'India's support for de-escalation and for the ceasefire should not be seen as going against Israel, given that Israel agreed to the ceasefire. That said, there is the future potential scenario of the ceasefire collapsing, and Israel resuming strikes on Iran. The question in that case is whether India would oppose--even if indirectly--Israeli strikes, or if it would take a muted position as it did the last time around and sympathise with Israel's position,' Kugelman said.

It was widely abuzz that, should the aggressions escalate, the Strait of Hormuz might have to be closed. If that happens, it would be an unprecedented act in the world's history. India would also bear its brunt should such a proposition materialise.

'There would be considerable and indeed damaging impacts on India's economy. India's petroleum minister indicated several days back that many Indian supplies don't travel through the strait, because India has been able to diversify its sources of supply. It's true that India has developed stronger energy partnerships with countries outside the Middle East, from Russia to the US. But, even with that diversification, anywhere from a third to nearly 50 per cent of India's crude oil imports and up to nearly 55 per cent of its LNG imports still transit the Strait of Hormuz. If the strait is shut and all those goods have to take more circuitous routes, Indian energy import costs would soar,' Kugelman explained.

However, a closure of the strait doesn't appear imminent, as 'Iran itself could face major economic costs if it were to shut it down. But given the continued volatile situation in the region, one can't completely rule out Iran making the move sometime in future--especially if the ceasefire collapses and the conflict with Israel resumes.'

But in the event of such an extreme occurrence, can India cushion the economy from its impact? Does India have an alternative? Kugelman maintains that it will 'likely redouble India's efforts to diversify its source of energy supplies, to reduce reliance on the Strait of Hormuz, and also to tap in more to indigenous energy sources, including and especially renewables like solar, wind, and green hydrogen. India's only immediate alternative would be to route its energy supplies through routes beyond the Strait of Hormuz. But this is not ideal because transport trade costs would soar.' India's position between West Asia and China

China, a close partner of Tehran, is one of Iran's top oil customers, and it relies heavily on the Strait of Hormuz. 'The China factor is likely one of various reasons why Tehran didn't actually move to close the strait. If the strait were to be closed, there would be a mad scramble to find alternative routes to ship energy supplies. And since China is such a major importer of Iranian oil, the scramble would be especially frantic. India, with its own reliance on the strait, would be caught up in it,' said the South Asia expert.

But for India in general, there are some notable implications stemming from the close China-Iran energy partnership. 'India doesn't have the deepest of ties with Tehran, but it's a friendly relationship, and New Delhi places great value in its current efforts to develop Chabahar Port: It sees this port development project as part of a key broader strategic goal to strengthen connectivity and access to Central Asia, via Iran and Afghanistan,' Kugelman highlighted.

However, given the closeness of China-Iran ties, and in light of China-India competition, 'There will be concerns that Beijing may try to undercut India's efforts to partner with Iran in building out Chabahar--an objective that already presents challenges for India because of US sanctions on Iran. China might do this by urging Iran to reduce its cooperation with India on the port--and perhaps offer its own support to develop Chabahar,' he pointed out.

There are at least eight million Indian expatriates in the Gulf region, and that's a core reason for New Delhi's strong preference for there to not be an escalated regional war. 'It's not just about safety considerations, but also economic,' the South Asian expert said.

'Remittances from the Middle East constitute a substantive portion of India's overall remittance revenue, and so evacuations of Indian expatriates from the region would have had broader implications for India's economy--even though remittances don't constitute as large a share of the economy as they do in some of the smaller economies in India's neighborhood,' he said.

Awwad pointed out that with a hefty number of Indian diaspora in the Middle East, and should they return to India in the face of war, it is unlikely to have a contingency plan to evacuate millions of Indians safely. India will be 'one of the biggest losers in this war,' noted Awwad. (ANI)