By Anita Inder Singh, Founding Professor, Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution
Together with Benyamin Netanyahu’s Israel, Donald Trump’s America has committed aggression against Iran. His Operation Epic Fury, which backed Israel’s assassination of Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has signalled that Washington has joined Jerusalem in violating international law. Vowing “death and destruction from the sky, all day long”, Washington’s dubious explanation that it feared that Iran might use its missiles against the US because of the unprovoked Israeli attack on Iran in June 2025 does not stand up to scrutiny.
Khamenei headed a repressive and unpopular dictatorship. As street demonstrations took place last January in Iran, Trump encouraged dissidents to “keep protesting” because “help is on the way”. But he has shown no signs of deploying US troops to substantiate this claim or of helping Iranians wanting constitutional reform. Even reformists calling for constitutional change have condemned the invasion. They have included former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi and former Parliamentary Speaker Mehdi Karroubi.
At another level, within the US, the war lacks both consent and goals by which its success can be gauged. True to form, Trump has failed to justify his administration’s breaking of international law. At least the Bush administration tried to win international and domestic support for his disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq before launching it.
The only demand Trump made was that Iran should confirm that it was not building a nuclear arsenal. Complaining that “we haven’t heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon’”, he blatantly avoided mentioning Iran’s disavowal of any intention to develop them. This is another example of Trump’s famous propensity to do what he wants without restraint or justification. His assertion that time is running out and deployment of the US navy in waters near Iran created the image of a war of choice. There was no sign of any impending Iranian pre-emptive action.
Trump’s diplomacy with Iran has been a deception tactic. Negotiations for resolving differences with Iran were reportedly going well. Just two days before the US and Israel attacked, American and Iranian negotiators held parleys in Geneva. Oman’s foreign minister mediated and was optimistic that significant progress had been made. More talks were envisaged, raising hopes that enough progress had been made to start drafting an agreement. For the US, however, the negotiations were a deception tactic aimed at covering up Trump’s real aim of instigating a war. What it boils down to is that a warmongering American president has unleashed overwhelming military force to compel a sovereign state into accepting defeat.
Regional turmoil
The Israeli-American strikes on Iran have profound implications for global energy markets. In retaliation, Iran has closed the Strait of Hormuz and put the world’s oil supplies and prices at risk. This lesson has not been lost on China, which has stopped exporting refined oil to foreign countries. China is the world’s largest energy importer and buys 80% of Iran’s oil exports. China’s trade with Iran has relied on non-dollar settlements and barter systems aimed at bypassing US sanctions because of its oil buys from Russia. The barter arrangements have involved discounted Iranian oil exchanged for Chinese goods, technology, and infrastructure investment. Iran has become China’s most reliable anti-Western bulwark. In return, Beijing has become Tehran’s largest trading partner and its best source of technology and security cooperation, empowering Iran’s ability to withstand Western pressure.
China is also concerned about its interests West Asia. West Asian states have joined its Belt and Road Initiative and it is involved in their development projects. The weaker any Iranian regime becomes—whether from American or Israeli military strikes or domestic unrest—the more Iran will become dependent on China diplomatically, economically, and technologically. If China is unable to contain the conflict, its influence across the developing world could be deflated, though not more than that of the US, which by abolishing USAID and bullying its allies, has lost international goodwill.
China is sending a diplomatic envoy to Iran’s neighbouring countries. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has held phone talks with his counterparts from Russia, Iran, Oman, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, emphasising the need to uphold the UN Charter. Wang has pointed out that military operations must be stopped immediately to return to dialogue and negotiation, and further escalation of tensions and spillover of conflicts must be avoided. Wang has also urged the Gulf countries, often divided between themselves, to unite against external interference to “keep their future and destiny in their own hands”—a clear reference to China’s wish that they should not be led by the US.
In contrast to China, which quickly denounced the assassination of Khamenei and the US’s violation of international law, India belatedly condemned the former and has yet to censure the violation of the UN Charter. India is hardly looking like the global power it claims to be. The Iranian frigate sunk by a US submarine on March 4 in the Indian Ocean was returning home after joining naval drills at India’s invitation. Delhi’s argument that the ship was sunk far from India’s maritime territory only makes India appear small-minded and unconcerned about the maintenance of international law. What reward will it get from the US in return? Will Washington’s permission for India to buy Russian oil for 30 days give Delhi satisfaction?
Outlook
The US and Israel lack a grand strategy to rebuild Iran after the war or to stabilise West Asia. Their callous leaders have no concern for the suffering of ordinary Iranians. It is even uncertain how long they will remain united against Iran. As Iran fights against chaotic Israeli and American dominance, expect the strategic and economic uncertainties to cause further disruption worldwide.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect the official policy or position of Financial Express.