God is said to be on the side of the big battalions, but it seems that the Almighty is unable to decide in the matter of the war in Iran. For the aggressors and flagrant violators of international law and the UN Charter – the United States and Israel – acting in tandem, a quick and easy victory has proved elusive.The brazen actions of these irresponsible states have led the world into a military and financial quagmire whose effects could potentially rival the negative consequences of the Second World War.The US on its own, and certainly in tandem with wholly militarised Israel, is militarily the heavier side by a long chalk, and hence the calculation, according to the US media, was that one week was all it would take. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it appears, was able to easily convince US President Donald Trump of this, although the US military leadership is said to have been sceptical.And the fighting is now past one month old and far from abating. The shimmering goal of one week looks a frightful absurdity today in light of Iran’s unsuspected resilience and powers of retaliation.The US is now reportedly bringing in thousands of specialised infantry for a possible ground assault, probably with the help of a Gulf state as Iran suspects, and is gathering more military assets as well around the region. The aim is to capture the Strait of Hormuz – the very narrow strip of water through which about a quarter of the world’s maritime oil and gas trade is carried – from Iran. The upper region of the strait is in Iran’s territorial waters.Incessant Israeli attacks on civilian life in Iran and on its nuclear, energy, and industrial infrastructure, are the order of the day. But Iran’s retaliation – from the start only retaliation, no initiation of hostilities – has not ceased either. An Iranian missile also hit Dimona in southern Israel which houses the Zionist state’s nuclear facilities. The smallest miscalculation on any side can bring about the unthinkable.Also read: In Inserting Itself into the West Asia Crisis, Pakistan’s Diplomacy Has Shown ChutzpahIran’s determination, its military prowess, its political capacities, and its national will, have surprised its enemies and the world, earning grudging admiration even from US quarters, even if they hate Iran’s guts. According to a New York Times front page report of March 29, this has turned out to be “a deeply unpopular” war.India too appears to have mellowed its stance in light of the ground reality. From giving every impression of being with the aggressors initially, in a recent phone conversation with Trump, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has at last spoken of the value of diplomacy. It’s obvious he has now had to improvise since many weeks of intensive fighting have produced no particularly favourable result for his special friends, Israel and the US.These aggressors did not outline clear war aims and kept moving the goalposts from regime change to destruction of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. It is perhaps the absence of a publicly stated and acknowledged aim that is making it difficult for Trump to declare even an artificial victory and get out.As for Israel, its actions show it has from its earliest days been a votary of lawlessness in the international sphere, and it has had first Britain’s and France’s, and then America’s, permission to be so.Evidently, like most observers, the Indian prime minister also appears to have bought the line that the dense air and missile attacks imposed on Iran would be a quick and successful “excursion”, the expression Trump is said to prefer over “war” as he lacks a Congressional mandate for it.Illustration: Pariplab.Indeed, in retrospect, it may be worth wondering whether Modi would have agreed, since the talk of an imminent attack on Iran was then so much in the air, to be in Israel to address the Knesset (parliament) on February 25, just three days before the attacks on Iran were commenced, if he had the smallest idea the invasion of Iran might turn out to be a long-drawn affair and would impose great hardships on the world economy and hurt India badly.While summoning the gumption to suggest diplomacy to Trump in their recent phone conversation, Modi has been mindful not to ruffle Trump. First, this was by no means a novel thought. Trump had himself begun to give broad hints about diplomacy, erratic and bluster-laden as these have been, and all sorts of plans are in play.Besides, in early February this year, it is useful to remember, the Indian leader had agreed to “align sufficiently with the United States on national sovereignty, foreign policy and economic matters…”, as stated explicitly in Trump’s Executive Order of February 6.Thus, by making a reference to the need for diplomacy at a time when the war didn’t seem to be going right for America and Israel, Modi was by no means headed in the wrong direction from Trump. At any rate, there hasn’t been from Modi even an implied criticism of the US and Israel for anything they have done, least of all the imposition of an illegal, imperialist, war on a developing nation that has long been a friend of India.Indeed, if Modi criticised anyone in the four weeks that the US-Israel combination has pounded Iran, it is Tehran for launching attacks on the Gulf states that host the US military, in the course of which there has been collateral civilian damage.All the same, Iran has expressed its gratitude to India for granting shelter to one of its ships returning from a naval exercise hosted by India about the time that the Americans torpedoed an Iranian vessel carrying navy cadets (returning from the same exercise) in international waters off Sri Lanka. This in fact has turned out to be a plus for India although New Delhi clothed its action as a “humanitarian” gesture with no political or any other overtones, so as not to annoy the Americans.Perhaps the “humanitarian” act is among the key reasons why Iran has permitted India-bound vessels bearing energy products, along with those for a clutch of other countries including Russia, China and Pakistan – through the Strait of Hormuz, the northern end of which it controls.Modi partisans have been keen to tout Iran’s permission given to Indian vessels with their familiar trope of “Modi hai to mumkin hai,” meaning Modi can get anything done! But, then, General Asim Munir’s devotees in Pakistan can set up the same chant.To exaggerate India’s “role” in the Iran situation, the government has been at pains to point out that it has been in conversation with all parties- shrugging off the criticism of one-sided conduct. In New Delhi’s mind, the condition of nearly one crore Indians, who work in the Gulf countries, was uppermost and this apparently explains its rebuke of Iran in targeting those countries (though they harbour US military bases).And of course India has also been in touch with Iran to request it to let Indian ships through Hormuz. There was also, in general tones, a criticism of infrastructure damage in the region due to the fighting (in Modi’s second phone conversation with Iran president Masoud Pezeshkian) and for once this single observation of India’s may be seen as an implied criticism of Israel as well, not just Iran. In reality, of course, this was a reflection of the changed course of the war in that Iran has not keeled over.Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.New Delhi’s deep concerns about the large numbers of Indians in the Gulf, and its concerns regarding ships carrying oil and gas for India being allowed to cross Hormuz in safety, are indeed valid and would have been uppermost in the mind of any government in the country. But the trouble is the government’s reluctance to have a full-fledged open debate in parliament.The prime minister has made a statement but the chair did not permit clarifications. The external affairs minister has made some obvious remarks and answered some questions. The government has called an all-party meeting outside parliament to brief opposition parties in which the external affairs minister and the petroleum minister gave routine explanations and assurances regarding the oil and gas situation. In his Mann Ki Baat broadcast last Sunday the PM spoke of the situation being “challenging”.But it is hard to get away from the feeling that the Modi regime is assiduously ducking a full-scale discussion on the floor of Parliament. Probably this is because it fears scathing criticism and five assembly elections are due in April. In any case, it has become this government’s habit to not let substantive discussions be held on important subjects in parliament.Two prominent Congress MPs have differed with their own party and backed the government’s approach to the US-Israel coordinated war on Iran and its fallout. One of them exclaimed flamboyantly, “It is not our war!” The other said that the Modi government had chosen “prudence over posturing”. These catchy observations in fact captured the Modi government’s craven position in its entirety.Also read: Nehru Stood by Iran When its Leaders Were Assassinated and Solved Suez Crisis. Now, it Exposes Modi’s Foreign Policy.The Congress MPs’ words were an endorsement of India at first maintaining silence when the targeted assassination of Iran’s supreme leader occurred on the first day of the war, and in fact criticising Iran for its bombardments while keeping mum on the military assault by the US and Israel which has set off the current conflagration in West Asia in the first place. And now this threatens to plunge the world in a crisis.But nothing has been heard from these “senior” MPs when it became evident that the war was coming home to India. With the all-round devastation in West Asia, how safe are the lives and livelihoods of Indians there now, and flowing from that India’s remittances position? How badly disadvantaged is India’s economy overall? Does that make it our war now? Do we now have an in-built investment in peace everywhere, or not, or does asking for peace and a higher level of international behaviour amount to “posturing”?These are important questions, and of great practical value, and do not arise from some fuzzy, idealistic, foreign policy theology of a bygone era whose relevance has long seen its day.If India, after independence, had arrived at the overall foreign affairs understanding that peace in the world was critical for the material advancement and overall development of poor, ex-colonial nations, this was wisdom gained from the experience of colonial wars and colonial exploitation.And for this reason, India spoke out against imperialist interventions of a military nature everywhere as these typically affect countries in a wide arc. This is exactly what’s happening now in the West Asia theatre, thanks to the US and its regional proxy Israel. But the regime in New Delhi and its apologists sitting on opposition benches still look for a transactional foreign policy line, such as the one that Trump propagates- and on his terms.Anand K. Sahay is a veteran journalist.