AS the conflict in West Asia draws in Iran, Lebanon and Syria, Iranian Ambassador to India Iraj Elahi talks about how India can play a more active role towards a ceasefire and the humanitarian challenge on both sides. Edited excerpts from an interview to The Indian Express:
When the Israel-Hamas conflict started last October 7, there were apprehensions it may escalate. One year down the line, it’s coming true.
In the beginning, the tension was very limited. Hamas launched an operation, which Israel called a terrorist act. Some countries supported that, while some other countries like Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Iran called it resistance… it was a limited operation against Israel but Israel tried to change it to an excuse for its strategic plan.
What would that be?
To eradicate Hamas from Gaza, to push Gazan people out of their homeland, towards the south, and to occupy all of Gaza. At the same time, it increased its pressure on West Bank citizens, even destroying the infrastructure in West Bank including schools and colleges… Let’s assume it was a terrorist act. Is the response of Israel proportionally accurate or equal to the terrorist act? In the operation of Hamas, 1,000-1,200 were killed but the casualties in Gaza are 42,000. For each Israeli, they killed 40 people.
If there’s a provocation, don’t countries have a right to retaliate?
Even if we assume it was a terrorist act and that they have the right for retaliation, shouldn’t it be equal? The retaliatory action is 40 times more, and still, there is no end on the horizon for this tension in Gaza. And it is widening to Lebanon, to Syria.
Another strategic aim of Israel was to engage the whole country to increase the concern of the West regarding the region. If you expand the tension to different parts of the globe and to other continents, they will all have concern regarding the consequences.
But the US is also asking for a ceasefire. Even France is calling for an arms embargo on Israel. What do you think of these statements?
If you are really serious regarding ceasefire, you use different leverage to push or to implement your goal. Till now, the United States has not condemned the crimes of Israel. So it implicitly means that Israel has got a yes from US on its crime.
This is a conflict where different parts of the world have different views… do you think there could be a middle ground, or a solution?
When there is dust, you cannot see reality. Now the situation is dusty, so a ceasefire can let the dust settle, then those sides who are engaged in the tension, and other sides who are around (geographically), can sit together. You can classify countries in different groups: Lebanon, Syria, Iran in one group, then the United States, and then Arab states. So first of all, we should let the dust settle with a ceasefire, and then think about a solution.
India called the Hamas attack a terrorist attack. It is also sending humanitarian assistance. It is advocating a two-state solution.
India’s position is clear. India is strongly supporting a two-state solution. But at the same time, after a few hours (on October 7), Prime Minister Narendra Modi called the operation of Hamas a terrorist act. The position of India is rational. But as a diplomat, I believe that India can play a more active role. India can support a ceasefire. India can convince Israel for a ceasefire or de-escalation since the expansion of the tension is not to the benefit of any regional countries and even the international economy. It is a good opportunity for India.
What’s the expectation on what India would have done, or can do going forward?
India is a pioneer in diplomacy. I cannot say what India should do or what India can do. Indian policymakers are fully aware of what is possible and what they can do. Let them make their own decision. Every country tries to seize any opportunity to its own benefit. De-escalation is (to) the benefit of India, a bigger role at the international level will benefit India, engagement of India in West Asia is on their benefit. And India also has good relations with Israel, with Iran, with different Gulf states, so it’s a good opportunity for India.
At the upcoming BRICS summit in Russia, do you think that is something the Indian and Iranian leaders are going to discuss?
We were working on the meeting of our President and PM Modi in New York but because of the logistical issue, we could not arrange that. We are now working on the meeting of both leaders on the sidelines of BRICS and we hope it will be fruitful for both countries.
What is the state of India-Iran bilateral ties in all aspects, including trade and the collaboration on Chabahar port?
Besides our commonalities and shared heritage, India and Iran are natural partners. We feel that both countries should now elevate the relations to a strategic level. In Iran, we consider India as a power of Asia, as a rising power in the world, as an important country in the world, and a good and reliable partner for Iran. And at the same time, we believe that Iran can be reliable and has been a reliable partner for India in different parts.
So we should mobilise all opportunities to strengthen the relationship for the benefit of both nations. Chabahar is just one project, India needs to diversify its routes to the international market geographically. So Chabahar and International North–South Transport Corridor are options for India.
But are there any challenges in Chabahar?
Not at all. Fortunately, the main contract between Iran and India has been signed, and now both sides are seriously working to implement the 10-year agreement (signed in May 2024). At the same time, the Iranian side is working hard to implement different projects related to Chabahar, mostly connecting it to the Iranian national railway network, which is essential for activation of Chabahar.
Coming back to the conflict, Iran had also attacked Israeli territory on October 1. What do you have to say about Iran’s direct involvement in the war? Was that also retaliation?
There are some parallel tensions or clashes in the region: Israel-Hamas, Israel-Hezbollah and Iran-Israel. We didn’t start the tension with Israel, we did not ignite it. It was Israel that violated Iranian sovereignty by assassinating Hamas leader (Ismail Haniyeh) in Iran; earlier, it was Israel that targeted the Iranian embassy in Damascus.
Launching a missile was legitimate according to international law and our inherent rights for self defence. But we hope that Israel has learned enough to not enter a new round of escalation, because if it does anything again, we will retaliate, and this circle will continue, which is not on the benefit of both sides and the region. Many countries want the conflict between Iran and Israel to go on, we should disappoint them.
What about the Israeli hostages in Gaza?
That is a humanitarian issue and not acceptable at all. Human beings have to be respected on either side. There should be no difference between the blood of Jews or Muslims. It’s strange to see the indifference of the world towards starvation of infants in Gaza.