25 Jun 2025 : A reset in West Asia, a ‘de-escalation’ for the world

Editorial 1: A reset in West Asia, a ‘de-escalation’ for the world

Context

The U.S.’s call for a ceasefire between Israel and Iran is a rare voice of reason, while the rest of the world remains focused solely on “de-escalation,” regardless of who is at fault.

Introduction

West Asia has undergone a dramatic reset following the bombing of Iran by Israel and the United States, carried out with the tacit or explicit approval of most regional and global powers. While European nations voiced contradictory and loud concerns, their reactions had little real impact on the unfolding events. Interestingly, even Russia and China, despite having signed high-profile Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreements with Iran—China in March 2021 and Russia as recently as January 2025—chose to remain passive observers. This silence was not out of helplessness; rather, it reflected a deliberate choice by these powers to stay disengaged as Iran and its allied networks were systematically targeted and weakened across the region.

Shift in Strategic Balance in West Asia

• The Iranian nuclear threat has been neutralized, leaving Israel as the sole dominant nuclear power in West Asia.
• Around 40,000 U.S. troops, along with numerous air and naval assets, are deployed across the region, safeguarding Israel’s military superiority.
• West Asia must now adapt to this new regional security architecture where Israel faces no significant military counterweight.

Role of Iran and Strategic Realignment

• Initially, Gulf countries feared Iran and its proxies as much as Israel, due to Iran’s deep political and military influence.
• Iran’s ideological vision and regional footprint (via state and non-state actors) positioned it as a major regional threat.
• This fear prompted Gulf nations to:
  • Seek U.S. protection
  • Tolerate or compromise on other regional concerns (e.g., Palestine)
  • Support Israeli efforts to weaken Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza.

The Abraham Accords and Strategic Trade-offs

• Gulf countries shifted towards normalization with Israel through the Abraham Accords, supported by the U.S.
• In return, they offered economic and diplomatic incentives to the Trump administration.
• However, with Iran weakened, Gulf nations now face an emboldened Israel without constraints, raising concerns.

Iranian Retaliation and Regional Escalation

Iran’s Existential Crisis and U.S.-Israel Endgame

• For Iran’s leadership, especially Ayatollah Khamenei, this is an existential threat.
• Political surrender or silence is not an option for regime survival.
• The U.S.-Israel axis seeks regime change in Iran to dismantle its:
  • Theocratic governance
  • Ideological export model
• However, unlike Syria or Libya, there is no viable regime-in-waiting to replace Iran's current government.

The Dilemma and Responsibility of Gulf States

• Gulf countries must act swiftly and responsibly to prevent:
  • Collapse of Iran, leading to regional instability
  • A vacuum that might be filled by extremist forces (e.g., ISIS, al-Qaeda)
• Destabilizing Iran could recreate the post-Iraq and Libya chaos, fuelling:
  • Fundamentalist ideologies
  • Regional terrorism
  • Loss of control over West Asia's strategic future

U.S. Ceasefire Initiative: A Surprising Shift

• The U.S. announcement of an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Iran marks a rare instance of strategic restraint.
• Comes at a time when reason and diplomacy have largely collapsed in West Asia.
• For Iran, this offers:
  • A face-saving exit after retaliating for U.S. attacks.
  • A chance to reassert sovereignty without escalating further.
• Israel, though impacted, saw damage underreported by Western media.
• Iran’s willingness to target U.S. bases in the Gulf likely forced Washington to pressure Israel into halting attacks.

Gulf States: Strategic Wake-up Call

• The missile exchange and ceasefire act as a reminder to Gulf nations that they are not insulated from fallout.
• The Gulf faces serious risks if:
  • Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil route.
  • Iran withdraws from the NPT, worsening nuclear tensions.

Return to Nuclear Diplomacy

Netanyahu’s Political Gain and Territorial Agenda

• Israeli PM Netanyahu sees the destruction of Iran’s nuclear capability as a major personal and political victory.
• Enabled by U.S. support under Trump, Netanyahu is now pushing for:
  • Realisation of “Eretz Israel” — a Greater Israel extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
  • Annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, long disputed territories.

The Emerging “New Middle East” Map

Democratic Deficit or Ethno-State Reality?

• The key dilemma: What form will the Israeli state take post-annexation?

Israel’s Two Choices Post-Annexation

• Historical precedent suggests Israel will likely remain an apartheid state by design.

Gulf Silence and Palestinian Crisis

• Gulf leadership has abandoned assertive diplomacy on the Palestinian cause.
• Despite loud protests at the UN and international platforms, they have:
  • Accepted Israeli normalization as a trade-off for stability.
  • Not pushed for a two-state solution or halt to hostilities in Gaza.

Human Cost of Occupation and War

Strategic Miscalculation?

• Gulf states may believe that annexation or status quo will bring peace and integration.
• However, the continued occupation and suppression of Palestinians may only fuel:
  • Radicalisation
  • Regional backlash
  • Moral and diplomatic erosion

Conclusion: India’s stand

India has deliberately refrained from making any statements on the Israeli preemptive strikes on Iran or taking an active diplomatic position—much in line with its consistent approach of non-involvement in foreign conflicts. While Israel was among the few nations to support India during Operation Sindoor, India’s strategic engagements with Iran, particularly the development of the Chabahar Port, remain equally vital. With significant geopolitical and economic interests in the region, India is carefully navigating the situation to minimise adverse impacts. In a move laced with subtle irony, India has called for “de-escalation”, offering the same diplomatic counsel to both sides that it once received during its own military operations, when the international community had asked India and Pakistan to de-escalate—often without acknowledging who the aggressor was. This reflects a troubling global trend of moral equivalence, where the violation of international law or territorial sovereignty takes a backseat to a superficial emphasis on calming tensions, regardless of who initiated the conflict.