Israel-Iran conflict and India’s delicate balancing act

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com.)

 As tensions escalate in the volatile West Asian region following the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israeli settlements and troops near Gaza, the situation remains highly charged. Hamas not only carried out a lethal assault but also took numerous hostages, many of whom are still in captivity. Global sentiment has increasingly leaned towards the Palestinians in the aftermath of Israel’s aggressive response aimed at eradicating Hamas. Israel’s tactics, characterized by widespread destruction, have drawn criticism for their disregard for civilian lives. The Israeli military’s operations have targeted not only Hamas fighters and leadership but also civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, churches, and mosques. Israel claims these sites were used as cover for Hamas activities, including an extensive network of tunnels where hostages and militants are believed to be concealed.

A brief ceasefire offered a fleeting moment of relief for civilians who had been forced to flee their homes, seeking refuge in makeshift shelters amidst the looming threats of disease and hunger. However, US President Joe Biden, amidst domestic scrutiny for his perceived alignment with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has struggled to effectively influence Israel to temper its aggressive military operations. Meanwhile, within Israel, public discontent has flared up anew, fueled by frustration over the failure to secure the release of the hostages. The tension is palpable as Israeli forces stand on the brink of potentially entering Rafah, the last major city still standing in Gaza.

In a significant development on April 1, Israel launched an airstrike on the Iranian diplomatic compound in Damascus, resulting in the deaths of seven Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members. Notably, among the casualties were three high-ranking commanders responsible for coordinating with Iranian allies such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Bashar al-Assad government in Syria. This strike, reminiscent of the targeted killing of Major General Qassem Soleimani by the US, marked a strategic victory for Israel. However, it also sparked condemnation for violating the established norms regarding the sanctity of diplomatic missions. With tensions escalating, the focus shifted to the looming question of Iran’s response. Speculation mounted regarding Iran’s retaliation, with little expectation that they would quietly accept the loss without a response.

On the night of April 13–14, Iran retaliated with force, launching over 300 ballistic and cruise missiles, including drones, targeting an Israeli air base situated in the southern desert. Despite this massive barrage, Israel’s anti-missile defence system, the Iron Dome, in tandem with its Air Force and support from US naval assets and aircraft, successfully intercepted all but seven of the incoming missiles. Israel maintained that the resultant damage was minimal, with only one Arab girl sustaining injuries from shrapnel. The response from the G-7 nations was notably more severe towards Iran’s retaliation compared to the initial provocation by Israel, prompting urgent discussions among member countries.

The stance taken by the Indian government is notable in its approach. While it refrained from outright condemnation of the bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, it expressed concern about the escalating tension and the breach of international norms. This mirrors India’s consistent call for adherence to international humanitarian law, as seen in its reluctance to vehemently denounce the Israeli targeting of civilians in Gaza.

India’s recent bilateral labour transfer agreement with Israel, finalized during Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen’s visit last year, has raised eyebrows, albeit not unexpectedly. Historically, Israel has employed a significant number of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, totaling around 80,000 and 17,000, respectively. However, in the aftermath of the October 7 attack, Israel plans to replace these workers with individuals from China, Sri Lanka, and India. Notably absent from this list is Bangladesh, possibly due to the religious considerations of the workers. Israel is specifically seeking 42,000 workers from India for the construction industry and an additional 8,000 for healthcare roles. This agreement drew attention, particularly due to an Indian travel advisory issued shortly after sending the latest batch of workers, warning of the heightened risks of travelling to Israel. The situation underscores the challenge of reconciling conflicting policies pursued by different branches of government.

The ramifications of this agreement extend beyond the safety of the workers involved. It has become increasingly evident since the BJP-led government came into power in 2014 that Israel holds a special appeal for it. Even during Lal Krishna Advani’s tenure as home minister, his inaugural foreign visit to Israel failed to soften his hawkish anti-Muslim stance, despite informal advice conveyed through a close confidant to moderate his image.

Although Israel enjoys widespread support throughout India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu transcends mere friendship. Despite the presence of fervently bigoted ministers from the extreme right within the current Israeli coalition government, the Indian administration seems unfazed by the prospect of deepening engagement. Even the fact that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich holds authority over the occupied West Bank, despite his outspoken advocacy for expanding settlements, does not seem to raise concerns within the Indian government.

The appointment of National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, previously convicted on terrorism charges in 2007, highlights a concerning trend. Ben-Gvir’s vocal support for granting “free fire” authority to security forces in their dealings with Palestinians raises eyebrows. Moreover, the suspected transfer of Pegasus, a highly invasive phone-tapping virus, to Indian agencies further underscores the potentially negative implications of the close relationship between India and Israel.

The Indian government’s policy of prioritizing labour recruitment to the detriment of Palestinians reflects a shortsighted approach, especially considering the significant Indian diaspora in the Arab Gulf countries, totaling over eight million. This rush to showcase large-scale job placements abroad, particularly as the Lok Sabha election approaches, fails to address the opposition’s criticism regarding high unemployment rates domestically. There’s an assumption that the ruling families of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, eager to engage with Israel, will quash any potential backlash. However, recent developments, such as the six Gulf Coordination Council members meeting in Doha to endorse a “Vision for Regional Security” that acknowledges Israel’s legitimate role in regional security, also highlight the continued importance of the Palestinian issue. As popular discontent simmers in Gulf nations, there’s a possibility of a gradual reduction in Indian recruitment by individual entities in response to public sentiment.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has navigated the delicate balance of India’s relations with both Iran and Israel. However, the language used in official statements reveals a noticeable disparity in empathy towards Israel. This balancing act may prove even more challenging if Israel decides to retaliate directly against Iran. Up until now, Israel has employed tactics such as cybersabotage and the targeted assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. However, a direct military attack could significantly escalate tensions in the region.

The recent escalation between Israel and Iran has conveniently shifted the spotlight away from Israeli actions in Gaza, providing Prime Minister Netanyahu with a timely distraction. This development not only deflects attention from civilian casualties but also alleviates pressure on Netanyahu to resign and face new elections. The Iranian attack appears to have been carefully orchestrated to minimize collateral damage, characterized by forewarnings and targeting an isolated airbase. The United States’ cooperation further mitigated the impact. This tactic mirrors Pakistan’s retaliation in 2019 following the Balakot incident, where strikes targeted uninhabited areas of an Indian military facility. In both scenarios, the objective was to appease public sentiment while avoiding significant escalation and subsequent retaliation.

If Israel refrains from further escalation, the possibility of a larger conflict may be averted. However, should Israel seize the opportunity to target Iran’s strategic nuclear facilities, the ensuing Iranian response could be more aggressive. Iran is likely to exploit any perceived vulnerabilities in Israel’s defence system, having analysed the outcomes of the previous attack. As tensions remain high, the world watches anxiously, hopeful for a peaceful resolution.