Statements by Western allies of the US since yesterday, commenting on the US–Israel attacks (war crimes, no less) on Iran, have:
• warned Iran not to escalate tensions;
• accused Iran of supporting terrorist groups;
• asked it to give up its nuclear programme and ballistic missiles; and
• asked it to come to the negotiating table to sign on the dotted line.
Do these countries really believe Iran would agree to shed its defences when a belligerent Israel and US seek to decapitate its leadership, dismember and weaken it?
A plain application of common definitions of terrorism suggests that belligerents in the current war, the US and Israel, practise state terrorism. Furthermore, it may be a good time to remind ourselves that Al Qaeda, Hamas and other ‘terrorist organisations’ have been beneficiaries of US and Israel’s largesse. It is rather cute to suggest that Iran is doing something unacceptable while the other countries do only what is lawful and virtuous.
It is public knowledge that Iran has not worked on a nuclear weapon since 2003. The US’s own intelligence assessment from March 2025 denies Iran has a nuclear weapons programme.
It bears remembering that it was the US under Trump in 2018, in his first term, that dumped the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 (JCPOA, the deal between Iran and the P5+1 [US, UK, France, China, Russia+Germany]), designed to limit Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for lifting international sanctions.
Iran has been militarily attacked twice by US–Israel in the last 12 months, with loss of life. This, when negotiations were ongoing. The inescapable conclusion is that Iran was dealing with bad-faith actors.
Iran has not attacked any country in its region, unlike Israel and the US, which routinely attack a clutch of countries under some pretext or another.
All these countries, including the US, rail against foreign interference in their internal affairs, including elections, but think it is perfectly okay for them to seek regime change, decapitation, violent overthrow of a system of governance, and instigate riots and insurrections against non-pliant leaders/countries.
The increasing assault on human rights and the curbs on freedoms by many Western countries make them unsuitable advocates for freedoms and campaigns against Iranian human rights abuses and oppression. Yet they unfailingly bring up Iranian excesses and demand an end to the reign of terror and oppression of its people, notably women. They are unmoved by the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in Gaza, but claim to be anguished by the plight of women in Iran. The double standards are pervasive.
This latest act of aggression reminded me of the face-off in 12 Angry Men between a burly juror bullying another mild-mannered juror who attempts to resist. Tensions rise, and the rest of the jurors rush in, not to rein in the bully, but to advise and cajole the juror at the receiving end of the menace and bullying. Why disturb the ambience? Isn’t peace preferable to turmoil? Will resistance open unforeseen paths that may become unmanageable? Can an appeal to the victim’s goodness (‘be the better person here’) and guilt (‘why inject tension and uncertainty into what is presently ‘peaceful’?) de-escalate and restore a semblance of order? Thus, it goes. The pacifiers are, in effect, colluders. When this becomes a pattern, the bully feels emboldened, becomes more aggressive and acts with impunity. I became aware of this dynamic and its consequences for the first time when working with my colleague Raghu Ananthanarayanan in the early 2000s. We were working with a client’s team, and Raghu skillfully deconstructed the film and offered significant insights that I value to this day.
Iran is merely the latest case of war and violence to assert dominance, control resources, and establish regional supremacy because the aggressors enjoy impunity, and ‘weaker’ nations are advised to, respectfully and in good humour, acquiesce and settle for crumbs. This pattern, unchallenged, makes for more brazen aggression and extortion/extraction.
Leave a reply