Iran faces multiple forms of treachery – the overt actions of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, and the more covert, double-faced positions of the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the Arab Gulf states.
While the United Kingdom and the European Union did not explicitly endorse the illegal and unprovoked attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, their response was cautious. They subsequently condemned Iran for retaliating in self-defence by targeting Israel and American bases in the Gulf.
European Union countries maintain long-standing political, economic, and, in some cases, defence ties with Israel. These include the Netherlands, Italy, the UK, France, and Germany. Support ranges from military hardware – including alleged assistance linked to Israel’s nuclear capabilities – to joint military exercises and sustained trade and investment.
Several Gulf states also maintain ties with, or indirectly support, Israel, including the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. Many host American bases that have been used to launch attacks and provide logistical support against Iran.
The UAE is at the forefront, having established diplomatic relations with Israel while hosting United States and Israeli intelligence agencies, investments, and military facilities. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, appears to straddle both sides – firmly aligned with the United States and Israel while maintaining the pretence of dialogue with Iran.
Another alleged act of treachery comes from beyond the immediate conflict zone – the reported sinking of an Iranian naval vessel about 40 nautical miles off Sri Lanka on March 4.
This followed India’s invitation to Iran and other countries, including the United States, to participate in a naval exercise and fleet review hosted by the Indian navy in Visakhapatnam, attended by the President of India.
As the Iranian vessels departed, one – the IRIS Dena corvette – was reportedly torpedoed by an American submarine lurking some 2,000 miles from Iran.
The vessel carried 180 personnel. Allegations suggest that, contrary to the Geneva Conventions and the Law of the Sea, no assistance was rendered by the attacking vessel. The Sri Lankan Navy responded to the distress call.
Speculation has emerged over India’s possible involvement, largely based on its strategic alignment with the United States and Israel. However, many of these claims remain unsubstantiated.
Even within such an alliance, it would be illogical for India to facilitate the sinking of a vessel that had just participated in its own fleet review.
Such an act would run counter to established norms of international conduct, despite India’s long-standing ties with the United States and Israel.
Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has become one of Israel’s largest arms buyers. Reports indicate that in 2024, Indian firms supplied rockets and explosives to Israel during its war in Gaza.
In a speech at the Israeli Knesset last year, Modi condemned Hamas over the Oct 7, 2023 attacks, stating that no cause justifies the killing of civilians, but did not address the reported civilian toll in Gaza.
In the current conflict, India has not condemned the Israeli and American attacks on Iran. Following the reported assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, no official condolences were issued by New Delhi.
India’s alignment is further reflected in Modi’s remark describing Israel as the fatherland and India as the motherland – suggesting a deep strategic connection.
However, it would not be in India’s interest to betray a fellow BRICS member. If India had colluded in the sinking of the Iranian vessel, it is unlikely Iran would have granted safe passage to Indian tankers through the Straits of Hormuz following communication between Modi and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.
While the reported sinking of the IRIS Dena by an American submarine would constitute a grave and reprehensible act, it was, in all probability, carried out without India’s knowledge. It would be difficult to reconcile such an act with India’s role as host of the naval exercise.
At its core, Iran’s predicament underscores what many see as a persistent double standard in international relations. Responses to conflict appear shaped less by universal principles than by strategic interests and alliances.
Unless these disparities are addressed, the credibility of international institutions – and the notion of a rules-based order – will continue to erode, with consequences extending far beyond the region.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.
