2 Mar 2026·Source: The Hindu

5 min

Richa Singh|India

International RelationsPolity & GovernanceEDITORIAL

U.S.-Israel Actions Against Iran: Thuggery in International System

Analysis of the U.S. and Israel's actions against Iran and its implications.

UPSC●SSC

Quick Revision

The U.S. and Israel launched an all-out war against Iran on February 28.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, was killed in the attack.

Iran responded with missile and drone attacks, targeting Israeli and American bases in the Persian Gulf and Jordan.

Tehran announced the closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz.

Oman’s Foreign Minister said a deal was within reach between Iran and the U.S. hours before the attack.

Key Dates

February 28: U.S. and Israel launched war against IranJune 2025: Israel launched a unilateral attack while Iran was negotiating with the U.S.

Visual Insights

Key Locations in U.S.-Iran Conflict

This map highlights the key countries involved in the U.S.-Iran conflict, including Iran, Israel, and the United States. It also shows India, which could be affected by the economic fallout.

Loading interactive map...

📍Iran📍Israel📍United States📍India

Mains & Interview Focus

Don't miss it!

The recent strikes on Iran by the U.S. and Israel, and the subsequent reactions from the international community, highlight several key concepts in international relations. Understanding these concepts is crucial to grasping the full implications of the event.

The first key concept is Sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to the supreme authority of a state to govern itself without external interference, a principle enshrined in the UN Charter. The strikes by the U.S. and Israel on Iranian territory are viewed by Iran as a violation of its sovereignty. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi blasted the joint US and Israel strikes as "wholly unprovoked, illegal, and illegitimate", directly challenging the justification for these actions under international law.

Another crucial concept is Use of Force in International Law. The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force by states against each other, except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council. The U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz argued that the strikes were "directed toward specific and strategic objectives: to dismantle missile capabilities that threaten allies, to degrade naval assets used to destabilise international waters, and to disrupt the machinery that arms proxy militias and to ensure the Iranian regime, never ever can threaten the world with a nuclear weapon". This justification is based on the idea of preemptive self-defense, which is a contested interpretation of international law.

Finally, the concept of Regional Stability is central to understanding the broader implications of this event. The Middle East is a region characterized by complex geopolitical dynamics, and actions by one state can have ripple effects throughout the region. UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, warned that the military escalation, and the subsequent retaliation by Iran across the region, undermine international peace and security, and risks a wider regional conflict with grave consequences for civilians and regional stability. Saudi Arabia's condemnation of Iran's retaliatory attacks on Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan and Kuwait as it denounced in the "strongest terms blatant Iranian aggression" underscores the fragility of regional stability and the potential for escalation.

For UPSC aspirants, understanding these concepts is essential for both prelims and mains. In prelims, questions may focus on the definitions and applications of sovereignty, the use of force in international law, and the dynamics of regional stability. In mains, questions may require analyzing the implications of these concepts for India's foreign policy and security interests, particularly in the context of the Middle East.

Editorial Analysis

The author strongly condemns the actions of the U.S. and Israel against Iran, viewing them as acts of thuggery that undermine the international system and disregard international law. The author believes these actions are driven by self-interest and risk escalating conflict with severe economic consequences. The author calls for the U.S. to step back and Israel to be restrained to prevent further erosion of the rules-based order.

Main Arguments:

The U.S. and Israel launched an all-out war against Iran, killing its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, demonstrating reckless warmongering.
The actions are not pre-emptive, as there was no evidence Iran was preparing to launch an attack; instead, Iran was involved in negotiations with the U.S. under Omani mediation.
The U.S. maintains close ties with repressive monarchies and dictatorships, revealing that the war is not about giving Iranians their freedom.
The war is a choice to eliminate an adversary and reshape the region to suit American and Israeli interests.

Counter Arguments:

Israel claimed the war was a "pre-emptive" war.

Conclusion

The war must end, with America stepping back and Israel being reined in, to prevent the complete shredding of the rules-based order.

Policy Implications

The U.S. should reconsider its foreign policy approach in the Middle East, prioritizing diplomacy and international law over unilateral military actions. There is a need for international pressure on Israel to adhere to international law and avoid actions that escalate regional tensions.

Exam Angles

GS Paper 2: International Relations - Impact of developed countries' policies on India's interests

GS Paper 3: Security - Linkages between development and spread of extremism

Potential question types: Analyze the implications of the US-Israel strikes on Iran for India's energy security and regional stability.

View Detailed Summary

Summary

Imagine countries are playing a game with rules. This article says the U.S. and Israel broke those rules by attacking Iran. It's like a player suddenly changing the rules to win, which makes everyone else angry and the game unfair.

On March 1, 2026, American and Israeli forces conducted strikes on cities across Iran, which U.S. President Donald Trump described as "major combat operations." Trump announced the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, confirmed by Iranian state TV, and urged the Iranian people to rise up and government forces to surrender. In response, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) initiated operation "Truthful Promise 4," targeting U.S. bases and assets across the Middle East.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the military escalation and warned of undermined international peace and security, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities. At an emergency UN Security Council meeting, U.S. Ambassador Mike Waltz stated the strikes aimed to dismantle missile capabilities, degrade naval assets, and disrupt the machinery arming proxy militias. Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon asserted the actions were to stop an existential threat to Israel and global stability.

Russia condemned the strikes, with Ambassador Vasily Nebenzia warning of regional escalation. Oman's Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi expressed dismay, stating the strikes undermined US-Iran nuclear talks. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi called the strikes unprovoked, illegal, and illegitimate. Saudi Arabia condemned Iran's retaliatory attacks on Bahrain, the UAE, Qatar, Jordan, and Kuwait, affirming solidarity with these countries.

A joint statement by French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer urged Iran to seek a negotiated solution, stating they did not participate in the strikes but are in contact with international partners. EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, called the developments perilous. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said his country backed the U.S. to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. UN Human Rights Chief Volker Türk called for restraint and de-escalation.

These events have significant implications for India, particularly concerning energy security and regional stability, given India's dependence on oil imports and its strategic interests in the Middle East. This situation is relevant to UPSC exams, specifically in the context of International Relations (GS Paper 2) and Security Challenges (GS Paper 3).

Background

The current crisis between the U.S., Israel, and Iran is rooted in a long history of geopolitical tensions and conflicting interests in the Middle East. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, signed in 2015, aimed to limit Iran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. However, the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 under President Trump, reimposing sanctions on Iran and escalating tensions. Iran's nuclear program has been a major point of contention, with Israel viewing it as an existential threat. Israel has a long-standing policy of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and has conducted covert operations and military strikes in the past to disrupt Iran's nuclear activities. The U.S. has also maintained a strong military presence in the region, and has provided security assistance to Israel and other allies to counter Iran's influence. The current strikes represent a significant escalation in the conflict, and could have far-reaching consequences for regional and global security. The international community is divided on how to respond, with some countries condemning the strikes and others supporting them. The crisis highlights the challenges of managing complex geopolitical conflicts and the importance of diplomacy and international cooperation.

Latest Developments

In recent years, there have been several attempts to revive the JCPOA, but these efforts have been unsuccessful due to disagreements between the U.S. and Iran over sanctions relief and nuclear commitments. The election of a new government in Iran in 2021 further complicated the situation, as the new leadership has taken a more hardline stance on negotiations. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also raised concerns about Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, reporting that Iran has exceeded the limits on uranium enrichment and has restricted access to IAEA inspectors. These developments have heightened tensions and increased the risk of military conflict. Looking ahead, the situation remains highly uncertain. It is possible that the U.S. and Iran could eventually reach a new agreement on the nuclear issue, but this would require significant compromises from both sides. In the meantime, the risk of further escalation remains high, and the international community must work to de-escalate tensions and promote dialogue.

Sources & Further Reading

How the world has reacted to US and Israeli strikes on Iran— BBC(2026-03-01)

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What specific facts related to the U.S.-Iran conflict could UPSC potentially test in the Prelims exam?

UPSC could frame questions around the timeline of events, key personalities involved, and the geographical locations mentioned. For example, they might ask about the significance of the Strait of Hormuz or the JCPOA's original signatories.

Exam Tip

Remember the JCPOA details and the sequence of events: U.S. withdrawal, Iran's response, and recent attacks. A common trap is misattributing the initial withdrawal from JCPOA to a different U.S. President.

2. How does this U.S.-Iran conflict relate to India's interests, and what should India's stance be?

The conflict impacts India due to its energy dependence on the Middle East and its strategic interests in the region. India should advocate for de-escalation and diplomatic solutions, maintaining open communication channels with both the U.S. and Iran. A balanced approach is crucial to protect India's energy security and regional stability.

3. What are the key differences between the JCPOA of 2015 and the attempts to revive it in recent years?

The main differences lie in the conditions demanded by both the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. wants stricter limits on Iran's nuclear program and missile development, while Iran seeks a full lifting of sanctions imposed after the U.S. withdrawal in 2018. Mistrust and hardline stances from both sides have complicated the revival efforts.

4. How might the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affect global oil supplies and India's economy?

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies. Its closure could lead to a significant spike in oil prices, impacting India's economy due to increased import costs and potential inflationary pressures. This would also disrupt global trade and supply chains.

5. What are the implications of the U.S. and Israel's actions against Iran under international law, specifically concerning the use of force and sovereignty?

The strikes raise serious questions about the violation of Iran's sovereignty and the legality of using force under international law. The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Without such justification, the actions could be deemed a breach of international law.

6. If a Mains question asks to 'Critically examine' the U.S.-Israel actions, what key arguments should I include?

A critical examination should include arguments assessing the legality of the actions under international law, the potential consequences for regional stability, and the impact on the JCPOA. Also, analyze the justifications provided by the U.S. and Israel, and consider alternative diplomatic approaches that could have been pursued.

7. What is the likely impact of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's death on Iran's domestic and foreign policy?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's death could lead to a power struggle within Iran, potentially affecting its domestic policies and foreign relations. A new Supreme Leader could adopt a different approach to negotiations with the U.S. or take a more hardline stance, impacting regional stability.

8. How does this situation differ from the June 2025 Israeli attack during U.S.-Iran negotiations?

The current situation involves a full-scale war with direct U.S. involvement, including the killing of Iran's Supreme Leader. The June 2025 attack was a unilateral action by Israel during negotiations. The scale and implications of the current conflict are far greater.

9. Which General Studies paper is most relevant for this topic, and what specific aspects should I focus on?

This topic is most relevant to GS Paper 2 (International Relations). Focus on the dynamics between the U.S., Israel, and Iran, the implications for regional stability, and India's foreign policy options. Also, understand the role of international organizations like the UN and the impact on international law.

10. What are the potential long-term consequences of these actions for regional stability and the global international system?

The actions could lead to a prolonged period of instability in the Middle East, potentially triggering proxy wars and increasing the risk of terrorism. It could also undermine the international system by weakening international law and the authority of the UN. A new arms race in the region is also a possibility.

Practice Questions (MCQs)

1. Consider the following statements regarding the principle of Sovereignty in International Law: 1. It implies that a state has the right to govern its territory without external interference. 2. It is absolute and unlimited, allowing states to act without any regard for international law. 3. The principle is enshrined in the UN Charter. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A.1 and 2 only
B.1 and 3 only
C.2 and 3 only
D.1, 2 and 3

Show Answer

Answer: B

Statement 1 is CORRECT: Sovereignty indeed implies a state's right to govern its territory without external interference, a core tenet of international law. Statement 2 is INCORRECT: Sovereignty is NOT absolute. States are bound by international law, treaties, and customary practices, limiting their actions. Statement 3 is CORRECT: The principle of sovereignty is a cornerstone of the UN Charter, guiding international relations.