Opinion | When Might Trumps Right: The Iran Crisis And Erosion Of Sovereign Norms

The essence of sovereign equality, enshrined in the UN Charter, transcends geopolitical convenience

Let us accept that Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, is an unpopular leader who runs a repressive regime where women, in particular, are subjected to unacceptable institutional subordination and humiliation.

But however unpopular a government may be, does that give outside powers the ordained right to invade it to effect regime change? Indira Gandhi imposed a ruthless dictatorship during the Emergency in 1975-77. But would that give China, for instance, the right to invade India to force a regime change?

Why Iran Raised Red Flag Over Mosque After Supreme Leader Khamenei's Killing?

Middle East Crisis Sparks Oil Supply Concerns: How Long Can India Manage With 90% Import Dependency?

‘In The Name Of Haidar’: Last Post On Khamenei’s X Account After Trump Declared Him Dead

Nifty Outlook: Khamenei Killing, Iran-Israel War May Trigger Gap-Down on Monday

Should countries be allowed to work out their internal problems on their own, or are we legitimising foreign intervention if a third country decides that it will determine what is good for the people of another country? Can change be imported into a nation riding on superior military power, unilaterally undertaken on the doctrine that we are the moral policemen of the globe?

The recent US-Israel military strikes on Iran — undertaken even while diplomatic negotiations were understood to be in progress — starkly highlight these fundamental questions. India’s official response has been measured: expressing ‘deep concern’, calling for restraint and urging all parties to pursue dialogue and diplomacy while emphasising that ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states must be respected’.

But measured responses, by themselves, often seem insufficient in epochs of crisis. Beyond tactical diplomacy, India — a civilisational power shaped by centuries of philosophical reflection on law, justice and order — ought to probe deeper questions. What is the nature of international law today? Is ‘might’ triumphing over ‘right’? And what role should India play when the integrity of nations — from Ukraine to Iran to Venezuela — appears imperilled?

India’s reluctance to castigate either the United States or Israel outright reflects a nuanced realpolitik. India pursues strategic partnerships with both powers: with the United States on trade and security, and with Israel on defence and technology. New Delhi’s diplomatic tightrope is further complicated by its dependence on Gulf oil — with instability in West Asia directly affecting energy security — and by the welfare of nearly ten million Indian expatriates in the region.

Similarly, I feel that when a Head of State of a friendly country, with whom we have long-standing and close diplomatic relations, is killed in an unwarranted invasion, India should have — if not condemnation — at least expressed deep concern and regret. Our complete silence sends a wrong signal and legitimises — to our detriment — future acts of such illegal decapitation. Our relations with Iran are civilisational. We have major investments in the strategic Chabahar Port; Iran is also a source of oil and part of our larger neighbourhood. Realpolitik alone cannot be the sole compass guiding a civilisation that has historically valorised dharma, the moral order that stands above mere power calculus. India’s civilisational lexicon has always distinguished between artha (material interest) and dharma (moral duty). International politics today seems bereft of this moral dimension: sovereignty has been rendered redundant, negotiations truncated at gunpoint by military operations.

If India’s foreign policy rests only on the avoidance of direct confrontation with great powers, it risks endorsing a world in which might becomes right. Unlike NATO members — bound by collective defence commitments — India is not a party to these military alliances. Nor is it belligerent in the current conflict between the US-Israel axis and Iran. Therefore, does not its position, unencumbered by treaty obligations, permit India to articulate a stronger moral objection to breaches of sovereignty whenever they occur? Should India not, by virtue of its own civilisational heritage, stand more forthrightly against repeated violations of international law, no matter who commits them?

We must confront an uncomfortable truth: international law today often feels like a script interpreted at the discretion of powerful states. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council approval. Yet military interventions routinely find justification in pre-emptive self-defence, unilateral sanctions, or vaguely defined ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrines.

This, in turn, raises questions about the legitimacy of regime change as a policy goal. In the case of Iran, a country of ancient civilisation, immense cultural depth and a population of nearly 90 million, can any regime change imposed from outside ever succeed? History offers ample evidence that external force may topple regimes but rarely yields stable, legitimate outcomes. The vacuum left behind often breeds more conflict, more instability and a deficit of legitimacy that only deepens civil strife.

A related irony of our times is the evident restraint shown by powerful states when dealing with nuclear-armed nations. North Korea, for instance, has not been invaded despite its repressive domestic order and repeated provocations. Is this simply because nuclear weapons render coercive military options too costly?

The essence of sovereign equality, enshrined in the UN Charter, transcends geopolitical convenience. India, given its democratic ethos and moral heritage, should not stop merely at urging restraint; it could become a louder voice for the reinvigoration of international law — not as an aspirational text but as a binding compass for conduct among nations.

The ongoing crisis — with its human costs and geopolitical ramifications — compels deeper reflection on the nature of global order. India’s measured response reflects prudence. But prudence without principle risks normalising power as the arbiter of right. In a world fraught with conflict, India’s voice must not only navigate its national interests but also remind the world that sovereignty, justice and law remain the cornerstones of a peaceful international community.

(The writer is a former diplomat, an author, and a politician. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views)

© News18