6 min readMar 31, 2026 06:30 AM IST
First published on: Mar 31, 2026 at 06:30 AM IST
The Iran war defies hope for an early de-escalation despite conflicting reports of backchannel diplomacy. The theatre of conflict now extends to the Gulf states with the Iranians attacking US military assets in the region. Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could see the entry of NATO members into the conflict as well.
The war is a colossal tragedy that has extinguished thousands of innocent lives since February 28, reduced to rubble large human habitations, and caused the largest-ever disruption of the global oil and gas markets. Presented as a pre-emptive strike against apprehended nuclear adventurism by Iran, and as a necessary move to ensure regime change in support of freedom and human rights, the war has few takers for its moral and legal legitimacy. It is widely seen as a hegemonic exercise of raw power for dominion over people and energy resources. It is a tragic confirmation of the impotence of the post-1945 international legal order to preserve peace when confronted with such an exercise of hard power. US President Donald Trump’s Venezuelan adventure and tariff wars attest to the collapse of what remains of the architecture of international law codified by the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and other treaties.
The coordinated US-Israeli attack on Iran — without authorisation by the UN Security Council or prior approval by the US Congress, and in breach of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 — lacks even a modicum of legal justification. The assassination of Iran’s political leaders and the scale of military strikes on civilian targets inside Iran violate the fundamental principles of “distinction, proportionality, military necessity and precaution”. No concrete evidence of the apprehended nuclear strike by Iran against the US or Israel has been presented despite repeated queries by several prominent leaders of the Global South.
The regime change justification cited by Israel and the US for the use of force against Iran militates against the first principles of international law, founded in the inviolability of territorial integrity and sovereignty of nation-states. In 1975, the opinion of Judge Hardy Dillard of the International Court of Justice in the Western Sahara case reminded us that “it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people”. To accept, even remotely, the validity of the spurious regime change argument for waging war against a sovereign nation would need a rewriting of the UN Charter and the rules of war. This is even as mass atrocities and killings in Iran may justly be condemned as an affront to the collective consciousness of the international community.
Recent conflicts across the world in Ukraine, Gaza, Venezuela and Iran, and the global tariff wars unleashed by the US, compel a philosophical encounter with the reality and nature of power. The perceived indifference of political leadership at the global high table to human suffering signals a reversal of civilisational progress, a “protracted widespread retrogression” of a world that must continue to aspire to civilise itself in the use of force. But, even as we bemoan the decline, if not the demise, of international law as a guarantee of universal peace, we can draw comfort in the thought that “you can bomb the world into pieces, but you cannot bomb it into peace”. We know from history that war itself is the problem and not a solution to the inequities of our world, and injustice in any form carries within itself the seeds of revolution. We also know that unless free of the dehumanising ravages of war, the realisation of a humane world order will remain an illusion.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s repeated exhortations for peace and deescalation signal a clear disapproval of armed hostilities and the urgency of ensuring a mediated settlement. This is consistent with India’s promotion of peaceful coexistence among nations and the eschewing of war as an instrument of conflict resolution. A necessary corollary of this nuanced approach would be to ensure adherence to a stricter international legal regime as a guardrail against the imperial exercise of power. This is premised upon a binding commitment to the substance and processes of international law on the part of those who hold the levers of power to sustain global justice. India’s role at this critical juncture must be of a peacemaker in the best traditions of its foreign policy, anchored in our ancient philosophy ofvasudhaiva kutumbakam and Nehruvian internationalism.
However, to be heard with respect, our perspective must recognise the realities of a dynamic power calculus and compulsions of geopolitics. In responding to a meandering war, the government’s judgement on how best to safeguard national interest as the ubiquitous moral imperative is entitled to deference. While issues relating to the nation’s foreign and defence policies are not beyond debate, public discourse must acknowledge that a serving government alone is best equipped to leverage and harness the factors of national power in the service of domestic goals. Also, it is impolitic to accuse the leader of the government and by necessary implication, a highly competent national foreign policy establishment, of bad faith in the conduct of foreign policy. In any case, a tempered articulation of dissent has greater resonance than accusations laced with vitriol.
Lest we forget, the challenge of diplomacy is to align principle with power in a mutually reinforcing engagement so as not to be pushed to the margins of irrelevance. We must ensure that India is not “acquiescent” in unconscionable unilateralism in a world that must recognise the imperatives of multipolarity and multilateralism.
The writer is a senior advocate, Supreme Court, and former Union Minister for Law and Justice. Views expressed are personal
India’s role at this juncture must be of a peacemaker in the best traditions of its foreign policy, anchored in our ancient philosophy. 
Share
