Israel – Iran War and the Limits of Diplomacy - By Mr. Subramanyam Sridharan
- Chennai Centre for China Studies
- Jun 23
- 14 min read
Article 21/2025
Abstract
This paper supposes that Iran’s nuclear ambition is doomed either way because neither its adversaries nor its supporters really want it to be yet another nuclear weapon state, which, on the other hand Iran is determined to achieve. It analyzes the geopolitical interests of the various nation-states behind this near-unanimous opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, which is otherwise deceptive superficially. It explains that while there may appear to be divergent views on the Iranian nuclear issue, they are mere optics and the underlying objective uniformly is to ensure that Iran remains compliant with its NPT obligations. It discusses the reasons behind such a convergence, not only among the major powers but also other states in West Asia. It discusses the deep-seated and unbridgeable divide of the GCC countries with Iran, the genesis of the current nuclear issue, the positions of China and Russia, and the position of the other involved parties. It concludes with the inference by the author about why even Iran’s close friends are not with it on this issue.
The Roots of the Conflict
Though there are various reasons for the ongoing turmoil in West Asia, the very existence of Israel is certainly at the core. The on-going war since the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas is a direct result of that core issue. That core issue has now spawned ‘Op. Rising Lion’. It was long in coming.
The modern version of the historic animosity starts from the British occupation and mandate of the Palestine region (c. 1917-1948) following the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in WW-I.[01] The ‘mandate’ to Britain to run the affairs of Palestine was given to the British by the League of Nations. Britain simultaneously announced the Balfour Declaration in c. 1917 by which it promised to establish within Palestine, ‘a home for the Jewish people’. Much before Israel was created by the British, Jewish migration to Palestine had started from Eastern Europe in the late 19th century as a result of persecution there. The rise of a xenophobic Hitler and his Nazi party increased the Jewish exodus to Palestine manifold. The UN created the states of Israel and Palestine by a division of the land (Resolution 181) into Arab and Jewish areas in November 1947. Before the British evacuated on May 15, 1948, an Arab army of large size consisting of Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, and Syrian forces moved into Israel. They were defeated by Israel which led to enlargement its boundaries in the process, including by capturing Jerusalem. As a result, over 700,000 Palestinians emigrated (an event termed ‘Nakba’ or ethnic cleansing) as ‘stateless refugees’ to such places as the Golan Heights (Syria), Southern Lebanon, Jordan, and the Gaza Strip. Creation of Israel has since then led to a spate of wars starting from 1948 as Arab countries refused to accept a Jewish state in their midst.
In c. 1978, Egypt accepted the state of Israel’s right to exist as a political entity. Over the decades, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank have grown in places such as Hebron, Bethlehem, Jericho, Nablus and Jenin. While Jordan, with Op. Black September[02] led by Pakistani Brig. Zia ul-Haq (later its President), expelled the Palestinians after Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Jordan tried violently to overthrow the Jordanian King, the Palestinians entrenched themselves in Southern Lebanon. PLO operated out of the infamous Beqaa Valley until it was driven out from there in 1982 to Tunisia. Then Iran-backed Shia Hezbollah took control of Southern Lebanon until recently. The Islamist revolution of Iran deposed the US-friendly Shah of Iran and brought to power the hardline Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in c. 1979. Since then, the Revolutionary regime of Iran has taken upon themselves to destroy the State of Israel. In c. 1993, the Yasser Arafat-led PLO and Israel signed the Oslo Accords and recognized each other leading to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. The casus belli should have ideally ceased at that point but it did not, for several reasons on both sides.
In c. 2007, the Muslim Brotherhood-influenced Hamas[03] terrorist group took over Gaza expelling the Palestinian Authority. Since then, there have been five major outbreaks of hostilities between Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF). Though the Muslim Brotherhood is a Sunni extremist group, they have collaborated deeply with the Shia Iran in attacking Israel. Iran also helps another Muslim Brotherhood-inspired Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Shia Houthis in Yemen, the Shia Popular Mobilization Force (PMF) in Iraq and the Alawites and the Shia in Syria in encircling Israel. Slowly, the fundamentalist Wahhabi regime of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and other West Asian Kingdoms have receded to the background in their opposition to Israel. Various West Asian monarchies such as Jordan, UAE, and Bahrain have since ‘accepted’ Israel’s right to exist. The reasonable ‘Saudi Initiative’ for the resolution of the Israel-Palestinian issue is still actively being considered by all parties. The close nexus between two of their arch ideological enemies, the Shia Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, are the crucial reasons for the insecurity of West Asian countries.
Both the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and the revolutionary clerical Shia fundamentalist regime of Iran do have an unnatural alliance that has two major common underlying themes: the destruction of Israel and the deposition of monarchy in the Arabian Peninsula. With the increasing acceptance of the reality of Israel by the GCC member states, fear of Iran therefore silently unites them together in their security calculus. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states, with the exception of Qatar, have had disrupted diplomatic relations for a long time with Iran. Qatar’s close relationship with Iran is predicated upon its need to jointly manage the Pars oil-and-gas field in the Persian Gulf. Qatar depends upon the munificence of Iran to share the oil and gas field as it straddles both waters, and Iran needs a friend among the West Asian Kingdoms. Apart from the most fundamental ideological cleavage existing for 1400 years now between the Sunnis and the Shia, there is a raft of other issues that bedevil the relationship between the GCC states and Iran, including the custodianship of the Two Holy Mosques, which is presently with KSA while it was with the Hashemite Jordanians until c.1925, and which Iran disputes[04] today. When Khomeini assumed power in Iran in 1979, the GCC countries supported Saddam Hussein in his eight-year long war on Iran, which ended in a stalemate in 1988. The Iranian security fears have since then multiplied for the GCC Kingdoms.
What is the Current Issue?
The current issue is over the imminent capability of Iran to achieve weapons-grade Uranium (WGU) production (93.5% enriched) of U235, which could very quickly thereafter lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. Currently Iran is claimed to have achieved an enrichment level of 60% as per the IAEA report of May 2025. Iran declared its intention to enrich natural Uranium, U238, in c. 2012 after having built the enrichment centrifuges covertly since the 1990s with help from A.Q.Khan[05] of Pakistan either directly or through North Korea which acted as Pakistan’s proxy in proliferation. Though Pakistan does not want any other Islamic state to possess a WMD, lest its importance would be diminished, this was a transactional deal.
Since c. 1985, Iran has been on a nuclear weapons acquisition programme to counter the Israeli nuclear threat. However, Iran’s clandestine activities resulted in UNSC Resolution 1696 (2006) demanding cessation of all enrichment activities followed by several Resolutions that imposed sanctions on it. The latest resolution 2231 of c. 2015 led to the creation of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5 plus Germany, until the US withdrew from it in May 2018 citing clandestine continued Iranian weapons program. During all this period, Iran has furtively and progressively enhanced its enrichment percentage inching towards the critical mark and also simultaneously increased its stockpile of enriched Uranium, which had been limited by JCPOA to 300 Kg of 3.67% enriched Uranium. The May 31, 2025 IAEA report said that Iran can convert its current stock of 60 percent enriched uranium (estimated to be ~408 Kg) into 233 kg of WGU in three weeks at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP), enough for 9 nuclear weapons, if one generously takes 25 kg WGU as the requirement per weapon. Iran also has a few thousand Kilogrammes of 20% enriched Uranium.
On June 12, the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG) passed a resolution stating that Iran was in violation of Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) by, “failing to provide the Agency with technically credible explanations for the presence of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at several undeclared locations in Iran”, “lack of technically credible answers by Iran”, “nuclear material still unaccounted for”, “a significant impediment to the Agency’s ability to clarify and verify Iran’s declarations and the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme”, “serious concern regarding the rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran, the only State without nuclear weapons that is producing such material”. It concluded saying that IAEA’s inability “to provide assurance that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful gives rise to questions that are within the competence of the UN Security Council”, thereby moving the matter to highest body of the UN.
The resolution was adopted with 19 nations supporting, three opposing (including China and Russia), 11 abstaining (including India), and two not participating. As soon as the IAEA BoG passed the resolution, US started withdrawing non-essential staff from its embassies in West Asia. Trump had consistently and clearly said that Iran can never have nuclear weapons and that both Israel and the US would attack Iranian nuclear facilities if talks failed.
In a defiant response, Iran called it a ‘political resolution’ and vowed to pursue Uranium enrichment even more vigorously by replacing the first-generation centrifuges in its Fordow facility with the latest ones and also establish a new enrichment facility in a ‘safe zone’ implying away from access to IAEA inspectors. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said that ‘Iran must retain the right to enrich uranium’ though he could not provide valid reasons for such a right, because peaceful civilian nuclear activities such as nuclear power plants do not require such high levels of enrichment.
Apart from enriched Uranium, Iran also intends to use Plutonium produced from a 40MW research reactor located in the Heavy Water complex at Arak (aka Khondab). However, this reactor is not yet fuelled with Uranium (U238) and therefore not operational.
The IAEA findings coupled with the Iranian defiance precipitated the current action by Israel. Iran already possesses missiles, including difficult to destroy hypersonic missiles, that could carry nuclear weapons all the way to Israel. Since Iran has repeatedly vowed to destroy Israel and has been constantly attacking and harassing Israel through its various proxies, Israel sees Iran’s possession of a WMD as an existential threat, especially given its very small territorial size and population. It concluded that Iran was unwilling to reverse its nuclear weapons programme and was very close to achieving the status of an NWS after which it will be impossible to reverse the process and secure its territorial integrity.
Israel-Iran-US
The current crisis must be understood in all the above context.
It involves the three main players Israel, Iran and the US along with a number of second-rung stakeholders like the GCC Kingdoms, the IAEA, China, and Russia. Having decimated the Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Syrians, Israel is not presently constrained by any threats from the Iranian proxies and we therefore do not consider them here.
The Iranian quest for nuclear weapons started in the 1980s mainly for two reasons. The newly-installed theocratic regime of Khomeini was concerned about its then arch-enemy Iraq’s nuclear weapon efforts which were quite advanced until the Israeli Air Force destroyed the Osirak facility under its ‘Menachem Begin Doctrine’ of thwarting all potential and threatening WMD sites in its surrounding region. The current Israeli operation is an extension of the same doctrine. The second reason was to target the civilizational and ideological enemy, Israel and wipe out its existence from among the momin to whom, Iran believes, this area belonged, an anti-Zionist position.
As for the US, it is not in its interests to have another NWS, especially an adversarial Iran which is also part of the China-Russia-North Korea-Pakistan nexus. Besides, its weapons coupled with its ideological position would pose an existential threat to its closest ally, Israel, as well as large and crucial American bases in the vicinity. They also pose a threat to other allies in West Asia who have for long depended upon American security assurance.
The Chinese Position
The Chinese position on Palestine has been to “end the occupation by Israel, establish an independent Palestinian state based on the borders of June 4, 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital and support Palestine to become a full member of the United Nations”. It is neither anti-Zionist nor anti-Semitic, unlike Iran.
After the April 2024 Israeli attack on Iran and the latter’s counterattack, Wang Yi asked ‘influential countries to play a role’, a reference to the US. China thus conceded to the superior influence and capabilities of the US in the region. Again, during the Putin-Xi Jinping telephonic call of June 19, Xi expressed support for Russia’s mediation effort if it offered one. Thus China, realizing its limitations, has been conceding diplomatic space to others realizing well that it is incapable of doing anything substantial in the given circumstances.
The present crisis started on June 12 when Israel struck at Iranian nuclear sites across the country. It was only two days later on June 14 that China reacted when Xi Jinping told the Iranian Foreign Minister that China “firmly opposes the reckless attacks targeting Iranian officials and causing civilian casualties”, and that it supported Tehran in safeguarding its national sovereignty and defending its ‘legitimate rights and interests’. This is a very nuanced statement where China did not outrightly condemn the Israeli attacks. It chose to carefully oppose only attacks on civilians and defended Iran’s ‘legitimate rights’ which meant its rights to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes only but without violating NPT obligations.
At the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Board of Governors meeting on June 14, the Chinese representative to the IAEA, Li Song amplified Xi Jinping’s comments when he opposed Israel's military action against Iran’s ‘peaceful nuclear facilities’. He also said that China would ‘firmly safeguard the international nuclear non-proliferation mechanism’, which meant that China did not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons.
China’s highest geopolitical aims are two-fold: displace the US as the current hegemon, and assume that role. In order to achieve the latter, it has to first establish itself as a regional hegemon. Asia is a tough neighbourhood for the Chinese hegemony because there are already four other nuclear weapon states (NWS) namely, India, Russia, Pakistan, and North Korea, and an un-declared Israel. Out of these four, China was directly responsible for Pakistan (along with the US) and North Korea to become NWSs in order to contain its direct enemies. There is no such direct enemy for China in West Asia in order to create a counter. China and Israel have enjoyed long-standing defence and technology collaboration and have no ideological conflicts either, in spite of strained relations since the Hamas attack.
The Chinese therefore, have no need to support the nuclear weapons programme of Iran, as they did those of Pakistan and North Korea. Therefore, while China would make noises in order to queer the pitch and create hurdles in the US-led resolution of this issue, it would not derail the non-proliferation regime and the ultimate objective of be-nuclearizing Iran. Therefore, China has so far led Iran down the garden path in the nuclear issue in order to sustain the former’s geopolitical ambitions. The dismantling of the Iranian nuclear program will setback the hegemonic ambitions of China in West Asia.
The Gulf States and the Conflict
In the 1970s and 80s, as Pakistan embarked on the nuclear weapons programme, it touted the weapon as gift to the Islamic ummah as the Christians, Jews, and the Hindus had already had them. As a result, countries such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) also got involved with the Pakistani effort. KSA funded the weapons programme in the hope that if ever Israel threatened KSA[06], it will have a counter. Later, as the Israeli threat diminished, KSA’s insecurity against Iran increased[07] and KSA had considered the Pakistani weapon as a hedge against Iran. Even earlier, KSA had used the Pakistani military to defend the King’s palaces especially since the 1979 siege of Makkah. It also asked a retired Pakistani Army chief to lead[08] the multinational military known as Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT), assembled to attack the Iran-backed Yemeni Houthis. The Arab Spring of c.2010 added further to GCC’s insecurity as they accused Iran of being behind it. In September 2019, Iran attacked the huge oil-processing facilities in KSA’s north-east and KSA asked Trump to punish Iran[09]. KSA being an NPT signatory, the proxy weapons from Pakistan provide it an important assurance against external threats. The 2023 thaw in KSA-Iran relationship was more due to the Saudi stalemate on the Yemeni Houthi front than any other desire to overcome the ideological cleavages.
The Gulf States strenuously opposed the 2015 JCPOA arrangement because it slackened the severe restrictions imposed on Iran.
The Position of the ‘Others’
While Russia is supporting Iran, it has also said that it can remove the ‘root cause’[10] of the issue by not only storing the Iranian enriched Uranium in Russia but also converting it to fuel usable in nuclear power reactors. This is a clear indication to Iran that its support does not extend to violation of Iran’s NPT commitments. The Russian spokesman said, “Russia remains ready to do everything necessary to eliminate the root causes of this crisis,”
On June 20, 2025, the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany told their Iranian counterpart at the Geneva meeting that “stop funding its proxies, end its nuclear programme, and limit manufacturing ballistic missiles in exchange for a deal to halt Donald Trump’s plans for military strikes”[11]. They gave an assurance of protection against any regime change in return for complete access to IAEA inspectors to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Two of the GCC countries that have been outliers with the rest and who have been involved with Iran in finding a peaceful resolution, Qatar and Oman, have conveyed to Iran clearly in May 2025 at a meeting in Tehran that “continued nuclear escalation will lead to serious regional repercussions and will not protect Iran, but will accelerate its isolation”[12].
Conclusions
In view of the above facts, we can ostensibly reach the following conclusions.
While superficially the various stakeholders may seem to be falling in two differing groups, sometimes even deeply, there is convergence on the fact that Iran cannot and should not possess nuclear weapons in violation of NPT. Even if some might claim that an attack on the most crucial FFEP could lead to radioactive disaster, the achievement of such a result through military means would be considered as a fait accompli in the end.
China’s limitations in diplomacy have been demonstrated starkly in the whole episode so far. Its breakthrough diplomacy on March 10, 2023 thawing the relationship between Iran and KSA has not been able to achieve much either in terms of allaying fears of KSA or in preventing a further deterioration of the security situation. If the unilateral attack on Iranian nuclear facilities were to invoke fear about Israel in KSA, the fierce counterattack by Iran would also induce similar fears because Iran has attacked KSA’s crucial oil facilities in c. 2019 while Israel has never attacked or threatened KSA.
The US has been able to bring to bear enormous military strength in the region at short notice while China clearly lacks such abilities. China’s two conventionally-powered carrier battle groups have just now begun first coordinated exercises in high seas.
China is believed to have gas-lighted the Ukraine war, the Pahalgam attack, and even supported the October 7 Hamas attack and the Houthi closure of the Red Sea in addition to creating tensions with India and Taiwan, and the Philippines. China’s objective is to create chaos in order to exploit the same for its ambitions of regional hegemony. However, China would still not want another rogue NWS in Asia which already has several of them.
The Gulf states, may have criticized Israel in order to appear defending the ummah against the Jews, but they must be relieved that Israel is ensuring the destruction of the nuclear weapon capability of their ideological enemy, Iran.
References
1.“The Times Guide to the Middle East”, Times Books
2.“AMMAN 1970, a memoir”, Norvell De Atkine, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, Vol 66, No 4, Dec. 2002
3.“The Muslim Brotherhood and the Hamas”, Subramanyam Sridharan, Oct. 12, 2023, Centre for Asia Studies
4.“Iran officially rejects Saudi royals as Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques”, Daily News Egypt, Sep. 5, 2016
5.“A.Q.Khan Nuclear Chronology”, Michael Laufer, Sep. 7, 2005, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
6.“Saudi Arabia banks on Pakistan for nuclear weapons, says report”,India Today, Nov. 8, 2013
7.“Saudi Arabia Set to Produce Ballistic Missiles”, Arms Control Association, Feb. 2022
8.“Pakistan’s ex-Army Chief Raheel Sharif Joins Saudi-led Military Coalition”, Jan 8, 2017, NDTV
9.“Saudi offers 'proof' of Iran's role in oil attack and urges US response”, The Guardian, Sep. 18, 2019
10.“Russia offers to store Iran’s Uranium amidst rising hostilities in Middle East”, Financial Express, Jun. 16, 2025
11.“Britain tells Iran to stop funding proxies or face Trump strikes”, The Telegraph, Jun 21, 2025
12.“Oman, Qatar pressure Iran into softening positions in nuclear talks”, The Arab Weekly, May 19, 2025
(Subramanyam Sridharan is the Distinguished Member, C3S. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the views of C3S.)
Comments