In a sobering and expansive dialogue on the escalating firestorm in West Asia, Professor A.K. Ramakrishnan—a distinguished scholar formerly associated with Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Jamia Millia Islamia, and MG University—has issued a stark warning to the international community. Speaking in a special episode of Timeline Conversations, the Professor argued that the current US-Israeli military campaign against Iran is built upon a “fabrication” reminiscent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

From the shifting loyalties of the Gulf monarchies to the “silent abdication” of India’s traditional foreign policy, Ramakrishnan’s analysis suggests that the current conflict is less about nuclear security and more about a brutal, long-term agenda for regional hegemony and regime change.

The primary justification provided by Washington and Jerusalem for the recent strikes is the “pre-emptive” necessity of stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. However, Professor Ramakrishnan dismisses this narrative as a political artifice.

Ramakrishnan noted that Iran has not reached the levels of uranium enrichment required for weapons capability. He further highlighted a significant internal deterrent: the religious fatwa issued by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which explicitly forbids the development or use of nuclear weapons. According to the Professor, the real drivers are twofold: Israel’s long-standing interest in eliminating any regional challenge to its statehood, and a deep-seated American “grudge” dating back to the 1979 revolution, which saw the US lose its most vital foothold in the Gulf—the Shah’s regime.

The GCC: “Willing or Unwilling” Participants

While many observers view the current hostilities as a contained duel between the “US-Israel combine” and Iran, Ramakrishnan argues that the geopolitical reality is much broader. He contends that the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are already “in arms” with the attackers.

The reason is simple: geography and military infrastructure. With the exception of Iran, every country in the region hosts American military bases.

Iran had issued warnings prior to the outbreak of war, and its subsequent retaliations have focused heavily on these American assets within GCC borders. While some monarchies, notably Saudi Arabia, have recently attempted to “diversify” their security by building ties with China and India, the Professor argues they remain trapped under the American “security umbrella.” This leaves them in a precarious position where they must now pressure Washington for a ceasefire to avoid further Iranian strikes on their own soil.

Debunking the Sectarian Trap

In the wake of the strikes, Western political figures—most notably US Senator Lindsey Graham—have attempted to frame the conflict as a sectarian struggle, claiming that a “Shia country” is attacking its neighbours to expand its ideology. Professor Ramakrishnan was quick to label this a distraction.

He pointed out that Graham himself was a key architect of this friction, allegedly misrepresenting Saudi support for American military endeavours to Donald Trump. Contrary to this “Shia vs. Sunni” narrative, the Professor highlighted the March 2023 Iran-Saudi deal, brokered by China in Beijing, as evidence that the region was moving towards a smoother diplomatic relationship before external intervention broke Iran’s sovereignty.

“Lindsey Graham played a major role in creating this big problem between Iran and Saudi Arabia,” Ramakrishnan noted. “But sectarianism is not a major element in this conflict.”

Regarding the massive protests following the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei—seen in places as diverse as Bahrain, Iraq, Pakistan, and India—the Professor clarified that these are not calls for sectarian war. Instead, they are expressions of religious solidarity rooted in the Shia tradition of martyrdom. “It is an expression of solidarity with Iran in a moment of crisis… not a sentiment expressed against Sunni Muslims.”

India’s Quiet Pivot: “Abdication of Responsibility”

Perhaps the most controversial segment of the conversation focused on New Delhi’s role. The Professor expressed deep concern over India’s silence following the assassination of Khamenei and a recent incident in which a US submarine reportedly torpedoed an Iranian warship returning from naval exercises in Vizag.

Echoing sentiments recently voiced by Congress leader Sonia Gandhi, Ramakrishnan described India’s current stance as an “abdication of responsibility.”

“India is abdicating its responsibility to condemn the unilateral attack on a country like Iran, which has friendly relationships with India,” he said. “When the sovereignty of a country is broken by a war initiated by the US and Israel, you usually see countries from the Global South coming up and condemning it. This has not been happening with India.”

The “Tehran to Tel Aviv” Shift

The Professor detailed a “slow but steady shift” in Indian policy, characterised by:

The Israel Priority: An exponential growth in ties with Israel, punctuated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the country just before the war began.

Economic Atrophy: India’s investment in the Chabahar Port—a $120 million project meant to bypass Pakistan—is now “practically” dead due to fear of American sanctions.

Energy Insecurity: While Iran was once India’s second-largest oil supplier, imports have now officially dropped to zero as New Delhi bows to the US sanction regime—a contrast to China, which continues to import Iranian crude.

Ramakrishnan argues that by prioritising its relationship with the “Gulf monarchies and Israel,” India has allowed its civilisational and trade links with Iran to become a “lesser preoccupation.”

As the conflict prolongs, the Professor’s analysis serves as a warning about the fragility of international law. By ignoring the breach of Iranian sovereignty, he argues, the world—and specifically the Global South—is setting a dangerous precedent.