How will the War between Israel and Iran Play Out?

The whole world is watching the war between Israel and Iran. International news outlets have been featuring various perspectives and opinions. Right now, it is a question of whether Donald Trump will decide to lend weight to Israel with the USA joining the war. Israel believes that he should. Trump says, “Maybe; maybe not.” Reuters reported on Thursday June 19, that the White House had said Trump would make a decision within the next two weeks, speculating that it would raise pressure on Tehran to come to the negotiating table.

Did the Israeli attack on Iran surprise the USA?

Perhaps not. An Al Jazeera report of June 18, 2025 states,

As the conflict between Iran and Israel escalates, United States President Donald Trump’s administration is offering mixed signals about whether it still backs a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Publicly, it has backed a negotiated agreement, and US and Iranian negotiators had planned to meet again this week. As recently as Thursday, Trump insisted in a Truth Social post: “We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution.”

Kelsey Davenport, director for non-proliferation policy at the US-based Arms Control Association, said Trump’s messaging had been clear. “I think that President Trump has been very clear in his opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was playing out. And reporting suggests that he pushed back against [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu,” she said.

What’s more likely, Davenport said, is that “Israel was worried that diplomacy would succeed, that it would mean a deal” and “that it did not view [this as] matching its interests and objectives regarding Iran”.

Richard Nephew, a professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, agreed, saying it was Trump’s consistent march towards a deal that troubled Israel.

“I think it is that consistency that’s actually been the thing that’s the problem,” said Nephew, who served as director for Iran at the US National Security Council from 2011 to 2013 under then-President Barack Obama.

But Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian history at St Andrews University in Scotland, disagreed. “The US was aware. … Even if the specific timing did surprise them, they must have been aware, so a wink is about right,” he told Al Jazeera.

“At the same time, the US view is that Israel must take the lead and should really do this on their own,” he said.

Reuters reported on June 12, 2025, that, “U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday (11), U.S. personnel were being moved out of the Middle East because "it could be a dangerous place," adding that the United States would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Reuters reported on Wednesday (11), that the U.S. is preparing a partial evacuation of its Iraqi embassy and will allow military dependents to leave locations around the Middle East due to heightened security risks in the region, according to U.S. and Iraqi sources.”

In an article titled, ‘Israel Appears Ready to Attack Iran, Officials in U.S. and Europe Say’, The New York Times reported that;

Israel appears to be preparing to launch an attack soon on Iran, according to officials in the United States and Europe, a step that could further inflame the Middle East and derail or delay efforts by the Trump administration to broker a deal to cut off Iran’s path to building a nuclear bomb.

The concern about a potential Israeli strike and the prospect of retaliation by Iran led the United States on Wednesday to withdraw diplomats from Iraq and authorize the voluntary departure of U.S. military family members from the Middle East.

‘US withdraws some diplomats and military families from Middle East amid Iran tensions’, stated a CNN report dated June 12, 2025.

The US State and Defense departments on Wednesday made efforts to arrange the departure of non-essential personnel from locations around the Middle East, according to US officials and sources familiar with the efforts.

It’s not clear what is causing the sudden change in posture, but a defense official said, US Central Command is monitoring “developing tension in the Middle East.”

“They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, and we’ll see what happens. But they have been or we’ve given notice to move out, and we’ll see what happens,” President Donald Trump told reporters Wednesday upon arriving at a Kennedy Center event.

On Thursday, the US embassy in Israel issued a security alert restricting government staff and their families from traveling outside of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Be’er Sheva until further notice, and warned all US citizens in Israel to exercise “caution and increase personal security awareness.”

In a report dated, June 12, 2025, The Times of Israel stated;

The United States on Thursday imposed travel restrictions on employees and their family members in Israel, expanding cautionary warnings for the region as tensions with Iran rise amid deteriorating nuclear talks and reports of possible plans for Israeli military action.

 

The US notice, citing “increased regional tensions,” came as Iran said it was holding military drills aimed at “enemy movements” and threatened a stronger retaliation against Israel than in the past, spiking fears of an expanded regional conflagration.

Staff in Israel and their relatives were advised not to travel outside the greater Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Beersheba areas until further notice. Traveling between the cities and to Ben Gurion Airport is allowed, the notice said.

Therefore, it would be safe to assume that the US knew of the attack. However, the big question now is; would the US join Israel in a war against Iran?

 

What factors will weigh-in on such a decision by the US?

It is a fact that the IAEA has noted concerns with regard to Iran’s nuclear program; most recently in June 2025, May 2025 and March 2025. Earlier, in August 2024, the Director General of the IAEA submitted to its Board of Governors a twelve-page report on the ‘Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)’.

It is also a fact that the USA held several rounds of talks with Iran on the subject of Iran’s nuclear program. It was only on May 27, 2025 that DW reported that the talks between the US and Iran raised hopes of an imminent new deal.

“According to US President Donald Trump, nuclear talks with Iran last Friday showed "some real progress, serious progress."

"We've had some very, very good talks with Iran," Trump told reporters in northern New Jersey before returning to Washington on Sunday.

"And I don't know if I'll be telling you anything good or bad over the next two days, but I have a feeling I might be telling you something good," Trump said.

The same report continued,

"Both the US and Iran are taking the current negotiations very seriously," Sina Azodi, assistant professor of Middle East policy at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University and an expert on international relations with a focus on Iran's foreign policy and nuclear non-proliferation, told DW. "They want to reach an agreement," he said.

According to Azodi, a deal with Iran is of great importance to the US government. "There are three central foreign policy issues for the White House: the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza and Iran's nuclear program. An agreement with Iran would be considered a major foreign policy success," he said.

Meanwhile, the government in Iran is keen on a possible deal, Azodi adds. Iran is running out of time for the negotiations as the so-called snapback mechanism, a clause in the current agreement, is coming closer by the hour, he added.

In this case, all United Nations sanctions against Iran could come back in full force if no agreement is reached.

Secondly, Israel would not attack Iran without the consent of the United States. As long as negotiations between the US and Iran continue, such an attack is unlikely, politicians in Iran believe.

"Thirdly, the economic crisis in Iran continues to worsen," Azodi told DW. Sanctions are having a massive impact and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has promised to work towards lifting them. However, so far, nothing has been achieved.”

Under the mediation of Oman, the US and Iran began talks on a possible new nuclear agreement in mid-April. As the United States and Iran have not maintained diplomatic relations since 1979, they have only held talks via third countries.

The first four rounds of talks were unsuccessful as the US and Iran were unable to reach an agreement on uranium enrichment. Iran insists on being allowed to continue enriching uranium for civilian purposes, while the US insists on a complete halt to enrichment.

According to reports in the Italian daily newspaper La Republica, Oman's foreign minister, Badr al-Busaidi proposed an interim agreement, which is being drafted.

Also, a high-ranking US official told the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom that the possibility of a provisional agreement had been discussed. This would involve freezing uranium enrichment for an initial period of three years in return for the sanctions being partially lifted.

It would not be the first provisional agreement between the US and Iran. Both sides had already signed an interim agreement in Geneva in November 2013. The negotiations subsequently led to Iran's nuclear agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, in 2015.

However, that JCPOA agreement was terminated by US President Trump in 2018 during his first term in office. Back then, Trump said that he wanted to "get a better deal" with Iran than his predecessor Barack Obama. The Iranian response was to gradually distance itself from the agreement.

Today, the country is closer to building a nuclear bomb than ever before, experts claim. Israel views the Iranian nuclear program as a threat to its existence. The Iranian leadership does not recognize Israel and regularly threatens to eliminate it.

Officially, however, Tehran emphasizes that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. But the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has expressed concerns. According to IAEA chief Rafael Grossi, Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state enriching to this level.

The physicist Behrooz Bayat says that Iran needs a face-saving solution in order to navigate the issue of uranium enrichment. Bayat worked as an external consultant for the IAEA and is considered an expert on Iran's nuclear program.

In his view, one option for Iran could be to form a consortium of Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These countries would then work together on uranium enrichment.

According to the British newspaper The Guardian, Iran also proposed in early May to involve the Gulf states in its enrichment program in order to refute US objections that Iran does not provide transparency.

However, it remains unclear how such a model could be implemented in practice, emphasizes Bayat. For Iran, it would be a face-saving solution that would mean it could continue to formally enrich uranium, even if its implementation is highly unlikely.

Meanwhile, the Gulf states support the current talks between Iran and the US. "For the countries in the region, it is very important that there is no new war in the Middle East," Sina Azodi told DW. "Anyone investing in growth and progress needs security and stability," he added.

In 2019, as tensions between the US and Iran increased during Donald Trump's first presidency, the Yemeni Houthi rebels, who are allied with Iran, attacked Saudi Arabia's state-owned oil and gas company, Aramco.

"After the attack, Riyadh expected a clear reaction from the US as its most important ally. But this failed to materialize," Azodi recalls. "Saudi Arabia came to the realization that stronger ties with Iran could be strategically more advantageous," he said.

In turn, bilateral relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have changed significantly in the past years. In October 2024, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi visited the Saudi capital, Riyadh, and met Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

In April 2025, a high-ranking return visit by the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman Al Saud and a government delegation to Tehran took place. They met Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

After years of tension, the two rival regional powers are working towards normalizing their relations and even agreed on military cooperation.

On March 3, 2025, the IAEA Director General reporting to the IAEA Board of Governors said, “Following my last report, Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% U‑235 has increased to 275 kg, up from 182 kg in the past quarter. Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon State enriching to this level, causing me serious concern.”

“It has been four years since Iran stopped implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), including provisionally applying its Additional Protocol and therefore it is also four years since the Agency was able to conduct complementary access in Iran.”

“You also have before you my report on the NPT Safeguards Agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran says it has declared all nuclear material, activities and locations required under its NPT Safeguards Agreement. However, this statement is inconsistent with the Agency’s findings of uranium particles of anthropogenic origin at undeclared locations in Iran. The Agency needs to know the current location(s) of the nuclear material and/or of contaminated equipment involved.”

“There is also a discrepancy in the material balance of uranium involved in uranium metal production experiments conducted at Jaber Ibn Hayan Mutli-purpose Laboratory, for which Iran has not accounted. Having stated it had suspended such implementation, Iran still is not implementing modified Code 3.1, which is a legal obligation for Iran.”

I am seriously concerned that the outstanding safeguards issues remain unresolved. They stem from Iran’s obligations under its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and need to be resolved for the Agency to be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.”

It was on June 9, 2025 that the IAEA Director General reported to the Board saying, “The rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium – as detailed in my other report before you: Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015) – is of serious concern and adds to the complexity of the issues I have described. Given the potential proliferation implications, the Agency cannot ignore the stockpiling of over 400 kg of highly enriched uranium.

I call upon Iran urgently to cooperate fully and effectively with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Unless and until Iran assists the Agency in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. I am convinced that the only way forward goes through a diplomatic solution, strongly backed by an IAEA verification arrangement. I will continue to support and encourage the US and Iran to spare no effort and exercise wisdom and political courage to bring this to a successful conclusion. The effect of a stabilized situation in Iran with regards to its nuclear program will be immediate and bring the Middle East one big step closer to peace and prosperity.”

“Despite the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the series of US-Iran talks mediated by Oman, Israel attacked several sites in Iran on June 13, 2025. Analysing the situation, Fabian Hinz, a Research Fellow for Missile Technologies and UAVs said, “Israel’s attack on Iran has exposed critical weaknesses in Tehran’s broader military strategy.” He added, “Its depleted medium-range missile arsenal and weakened regional allies leave it with limited options for retaliation against Israel.”

The attack surprised many around the world including the IAEA Director General who said, “Early this morning, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was informed of the military operation launched by Israel which includes attacks on nuclear facilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

“We are currently in contact with the Iranian nuclear safety authorities to ascertain the status of relevant nuclear facilities and to assess any wider impacts on nuclear safety and security. At present, the competent Iranian authorities have confirmed that the Natanz enrichment site has been impacted and that there are no elevated radiation levels. They have also reported that at present the Esfahan and Fordow sites have not been impacted.”

“This development is deeply concerning. I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment.  Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security.”

“In this regard, the IAEA recalls the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”. 

“Furthermore, the IAEA has consistently underlined that “armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked”, as was stated in GC(XXXIV)/RES/533.”

“As Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and consistent with the objectives of the IAEA under the IAEA Statute, I call on all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation. I reiterate that any military action that jeopardizes the safety and security of nuclear facilities risks grave consequences for the people of Iran, the region, and beyond.”

“Yesterday, the Board of Governors adopted an important resolution on Iran’s safeguards obligations. In addition to this, the Board resolution stressed its support for a diplomatic solution to the problems posed by the Iranian nuclear program.”

“The IAEA continues to monitor the situation closely, stands ready to provide technical assistance, and remains committed to its nuclear safety, security and safeguards mandate in all circumstances. I stand ready to engage with all relevant parties to help ensure the protection of nuclear facilities and the continued peaceful use of nuclear technology in accordance with the Agency mandate, including, deploying Agency nuclear security and safety experts (in addition to our safeguards inspectors in Iran) wherever necessary to ensure that nuclear installations are fully protected and continue to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.”

“I wish to inform the Board that I have indicated to the respective authorities my readiness to travel at the earliest to assess the situation and ensure safety, security and non-proliferation in Iran.”

“I have also been in contact with our inspectors in Iran and Israel. The safety of our staff is of paramount importance. All necessary actions are being taken to ensure they are not harmed.”

“Despite the current military actions and heightened tensions, it is clear that the only sustainable path forward—for Iran, for Israel, the entire region, and the international community—is one grounded in dialogue and diplomacy to ensure peace, stability, and cooperation.”  (Emphasis mine.)

“The International Atomic Energy Agency, as the international technical institution entrusted with overseeing the peaceful use of nuclear energy, remains the unique and vital forum for dialogue, especially now.” 

“In accordance with its Statute and longstanding mandate, the IAEA provides the framework and natural platform where facts prevail over rhetoric and where engagement can replace escalation.”

“I reaffirm the Agency’s readiness to facilitate technical discussions and support efforts that promote transparency, safety, security and the peaceful resolution of nuclear-related issues in Iran.”

As the world ponders the serious consequences of a war that could have negative social and economic impacts on countries near and far, various governments have already begun taking measures to mitigate the impacts on their populations.

 

The Consequences

One of the key responses has been the rush to call for diplomatic negotiations. The region immediately affected is the middle east. The first casualty if you will, is the price of oil which was around USD 64 a barrel of crude before June 13, 2025. Analysts expect the price to rise beyond USD 100 per barrel if there is a major war involving the US. Capital Economics.com had this forecast on June 18, 2025. “Oil prices could feasibly surge to $130-150pb were hostilities between Israel and Iran to escalate in a way that resulted in major disruption to Middle Eastern energy exports and/or shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. However, so long as the conflict does not become a long-lasting war with no “off ramp”, history suggests that any initial spike in the oil price would dissipate before long.”

IG International (ig.com) cautions, “… the path ahead depends on whether geopolitical risks translate into actual supply disruptions or diplomatic resolution.”

Directly affected are the populations of 90 million people in Iran and 10 million in Israel. The second is the citizenry of various countries stranded in Iran and Israel without an easy exit from the war zone. Many are being directed by their native countries to neighboring countries bordering both Iran and Israel. As of June 19, 2025, Sri Lanka had 35 nationals in Iran and approximately 20,000 migrants in Israel and had reached out to India for for assistance in the repatriation of Sri Lankan students in Iran. India which has a large workforce in the middle east has evacuated over 100 Indian students from Iran via Armenia. The flight has landed in New Delhi June 19, according to the Hindu. Nearly 9 million Non-resident Indians (NRI) live the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain according to figures provided by the Indian External Affairs Ministry in 2023. That is 66% of the 13.4 million NRIs domiciled overseas.

Australians are resorting to chartering armored cars and ferries to flee Israel, or sheltering in place in Iran, as Australia’s embassies scramble to organise evacuations in a region where flights are not operating and conflict is escalating The Sydney Morning Herald reported June 19, 2025.

Almost 3000 Australians have registered to be evacuated out of Israel and Iran, representing a near doubling in the number of people seeking to flee for each day the conflict has continued, and some have accused the government’s response of being “delinquent”.

At least two buses have already left Israel for Jordan with Australians on board, including one organised by insurers and the other by the government, but others are paying private companies for evacuation via armoured car or ferries to Cyprus.

Penelope Ying-Yen Wong (Australia’s Minster of Foreign Affairs) told ABC News Breakfast on Thursday, the missile strikes between Israel and Iran made the situation difficult because they made it impossible to conduct evacuation flights.

“It’s a very, very difficult situation on the ground at the moment,” Wong said. “Obviously, there are more opportunities [to evacuate people] in relation to Israel. We took the opportunity to get a small group out across by land crossing yesterday. And we’ll seek to continue that … Iran is a very complicated situation, a very risky situation.”

Other countries including China and Russia face similar difficulties. That Trump’s decision would take two more weeks would bring a sigh of relief for all countries seeking to repatriate their citizens from the war zone; more so for US allies seeking to get their citizens out of harm’s way.

Reuters reported Thursday that Russia had warned that a strike on Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Plant could cause a Chernobyl-style catastrophe. The report went on to say that the warning had come from the head of Russia's nuclear energy.

Bushehr is Iran's only operating nuclear power plant and was built by Russia, the report continued, stating that President Vladimir Putin had told journalists in the early hours of Thursday that Israel had promised Russia that Moscow's workers - who are building more nuclear facilities at the Bushehr site - would be safe, even as Israel tries to degrade Iran's nuclear capabilities by force.

The head of Russia's state nuclear corporation Rosatom warned on Thursday that the situation around the plant was fraught with risk, it said. "If there is a strike on the operational first power unit, it will be a catastrophe comparable to Chernobyl," the state RIA news agency cited Alexei Likhachev as saying, according to the Reuter report.

Many countries have also shifted their operational diplomatic offices away from Teheran and Tel Aviv. The US would be weighing the risks of getting involved in an all-out war that could polarize a world already grappling with various challenges including Trump’s tariffs. The US could also lose the friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain and other middle eastern countries Trump was keen to woo, with his first overseas visit as he began his send term as President of the USA.

TRT Global in its report dated June 19, outlines the severe consequences that could be faced by the Gulf Cooperation council (GCC) countries.

Earlier, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)—comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—has activated emergency measures to prepare for potential radiological or environmental fallout.

Bahrain has readied 33 shelters and tested nationwide sirens, while in Oman, authorities circulated safety guidance urging residents to seal homes and stay indoors in case of contamination, according to media reports.

Regional leaders have voiced alarm over what they describe as reckless military actions that risk devastating shared waters and critical resources. 

The UAE’s foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, warned against “miscalculated actions that could extend beyond the borders” of Iran and Israel, while Qatar highlighted fears of “uncalculated strikes” that could endanger Gulf states' water supplies. The straight-line distance (as the crow-flies) between Dubai and Iran according to Google is 781.30 km or 485.48 miles.

Almost 60 million people across the Gulf rely on desalinated water from the Gulf. A significant radiological leak could contaminate this source, endangering drinking water, agriculture, and marine life. 

Qatar’s Prime Minister Mohammed Al Thani previously warned that such a scenario could leave countries like Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE without usable water in just three days.

The BBC reports that, The Metro calls it the ArmagedDon and says speculation over whether Donald Trump will order US strikes against Iran dominates Thursday's papers. The Telegraph reports Donald Trump telling reporters on the White House South Lawn, “Next week will be decisive regarding Iran, and it may happen before the end of the week. I may do it; I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran’s got a lot of trouble,” he said. It has since been extended to two weeks. One can only hope that the US government has a proper understanding of the wider humanitarian concerns as they make the all-important decision. END.

 

P.S. – Events have overtaken and escalated the situation with the US joining-in since this post was written on June 20, 2025.

Read how smugglers are raking up the marine eco-system around the Gulf of Mannar

Smugglers Devastate Gulf of Mannar Marine Reserve

By Malini Shankar*

A glimpse of seagrass close to the seashore of the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park, which is home to a spectrum of marine wildlife Credit:Malini Shankar/IPS Buy this picture

RAMESHWARAM, India, May 2, 2012 (IPS) - Forest officials of the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve abutting the Palk Straits between India and Sri Lanka have reported a decline in marine wildlife, as smugglers exploiting lax conservation laws in the region tank up on protected species used in traditional Chinese medicines and fine dining.

In coordination with the Indian Coast Guard, forest officials have recorded more than 200 cases of smuggling, accounting for the loss of over 13,000 kilogrammes of sea cucumbers (Holothurian scabra) and seahorses (Hippocampus species) in the last 16 months alone.

Illegal marine wildlife traders in India smuggle their catch to neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, where the red-flagged items become legal marine exports to other Southeast Asian countries due to exemptions in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

"The seahorse found in the Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park is one of the five rarer species of seahorses," Shekhar Kumar Niraj, field director of the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve, informed IPS.

In 2001, India’s stringent Wildlife Protection Act listed sea cucumbers and seahorses as ‘schedule I’, thereby making forest officials legally responsible for their protection.

Around the same time as this classification came into play, the markets for traditional Chinese medicines exploded.

A fragile ecosystem

The Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park (GOMMNP), part of the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve, is an undersea reserve formed by the strip of land that once connected India to Sri Lanka. The peninsula divides the Palk Straits in the north from the Gulf of Mannar in the south.

The fragile reef ecosystem is shallow and forms the habitat for corals, crabs, clown fish, dugongs, dolphins, porpoise, prawns, parrot fish, sea cucumbers, seahorses, sea snakes, turtles, whales and a whole list of highly endangered endemic marine wildlife.

The marine diversity includes four species of shrimp, 106 species of crabs, 17 types of sea cucumbers, 466 species of molluscs, 108 species of sponges and 100 species of echinoderms.

More than 2000 species of fin fish are found in the Gulf of Mannar and seagrass is also clearly visible in the shallow sea. Prosopsis jujuba, a shrub forest species endemic to dry arid zones, "is surprisingly dominant in the mangroves and mud flats, amply justifying the protection lent to the marine national park," Sundar Kumar, the wildlife warden of the underwater reserve, told IPS.

"The hotbeds and kingpins of marine wildlife crime are in Rameshwaram, Mandapam, and Tuticorin all around the Indian coast of the GOMMNP," T. Rajendran, assistant conservator of forests for the marine reserve, told IPS.

Lose-lose deal for fisherfolk

"There is no local consumption or markets (for smuggled goods). Only the middlemen gain. These are the (people) who are connected to international crime syndicates," added Niraj. These ‘middlemen’ buy sea cucumbers from fisherfolk for about 50 dollars per kilogramme and sell them for a profit of 600 percent, at 307 dollars per kilogramme.

"Sea cucumbers have ecologically significant roles in scavenging coasts and seabeds, which in turn helps other species like corals and seagrass to flourish and propagate," Niraj explained.

"Only owners of trawler fishing boats indulge in poaching sea cucumbers, which is a double whammy for us traditional fishermen; not only is the catch depleting, but fuel prices are increasing. The additional burden of illegal poaching of marine wildlife by trawler fishermen make us suspect in the eyes of the enforcement agencies," lamented K. David, a traditional fisherman in Rameshwaram.

Field director Niraj disputes the fact that trawler fisherfolk are the only smugglers involved in this rackets, pointing to statistics of recent raids that show traditional (Dinghy) fishermen also indulging in the smuggling of sea cucumbers and seahorses.

David is convinced that traditional fishing will come to an end when his generation is "dead and gone", since youngsters like 10-year-old Vishal Selvan and 11-year-old Alan want to become merchant navy captains and Indian Administrative Service officers respectively.

In order to keep traditional fishermen from engaging with smugglers out of economic desperation, employment schemes have been put in place to guarantee the livelihoods of various fisherfolk, in the face of depleting fish stocks.

"The alternative livelihood initiatives carried out by the United Nations Development Programme-Global Environmental Facility (UNDP-GEF) through the Gulf of Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve Trust (GoMBRT) include Palmyra mat weaving and thatch making, clown fish and other ornamental fish fattening, goat rearing, jasmine cultivation, betel leaf cultivation, salt-fish making and plaster of Paris for doll-making," V. Deepak Samuel, programme specialist at the energy and environment unit of the UNDP-GEF (GoMBRT), told IPS.

Unchecked crime

"We are as yet unable to trace the route of smuggled goods and links beyond Sri Lanka to markets in the Far East, primarily because once the goods arrive in Sri Lanka they become legal exports, blocking our investigations further," explained a wildlife crime inspector, speaking under condition of anonymity out of fear for his safety.

Patrolling the sea is all the more challenging given enforcement agencies’ meagre logistical capacity.

Led by Rajendran, the entire patrol operation includes four range forest officers, 22 foresters, 11 guards, two watchers and 33 anti-poaching camp watchers who share six jeeps, six wireless sets, two base stations, six anti-poaching camps, eight mechanised patrol boats and three speed boats between them – to patrol an area of 10,500 square kilometres or 18,900 nautical miles.

They lack night vision lamps and financial incentives. They are no match for the 25,000 well equipped trawlers that fish illegally across the whole Marine Biosphere Reserve every day.

Still, the greatest challenge is not out on the water.

"Opposition to protection of marine wildlife (and) fishes comes from even official establishments like the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, the Marine Products Export Development Authority and the National Institute of Oceanography – all in the name of livelihoods," Niraj said.

"Growing numbers of anthropologists propagate illusions glossing over the likely consequences that would emerge should we lose the remaining biodiversity… They quote the Convention on Biological Diversity where sustainability, right to access and benefits sharing are the guiding principles. However, sustainability that applies to economic principles may not exactly apply to ecology because of biological principles that are very different," Niraj explained.

Poaching of sea cucumbers even in the seas around the Andaman Nicobar Islands is so rampant that natives report they hardly sight sea cucumbers anymore.

*Malini Shankar is a wildlife photojournalist and filmmaker based in Bangalore.

(END)

(Courtesy: IPS News)

India shoots itself in the foot with vote against Sri Lanka in Geneva

The recent vote on Sri Lanka at the nineteenth session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) saw India isolate itself and make a hurried statement that appeared to be an apology for its foreign policy.

The US sponsored resolution was passed with 24 countries voting for, 15 voting against and 8 abstentions. India voted with the US in support of the resolution.

India a pioneer of of non-alignment

India's Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru with other world leaders who pioneered the non-aligned movement (Photo courtsey: www.sukarnoyears.com)

It was in the 1950s that India’s then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru promoted the policy of non-alignment. The policy was the outcome of the increasing polarisation of the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and its allies. In fact, the term non-alignment was coined by Nehru in a speech in Colombo in 1954.

Since its inception and the first meeting of the Heads of State of the non-aligned countries in 1961 India has strongly argued for a policy of non-alignment even in the post-cold-war era.

Therefore, many not just in Sri Lanka but around the world were surprised, when Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh recently told the Indian Parliament that India was likely to vote against Sri Lanka and in favour of the US sponsored resolution which sought to force Sri Lanka to act according to the dictates of the United States and other powerful western countries that dominate the United Nations system to force Sri Lanka to act on the recommendations of the indigenously implemented mechanism of the ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’.

India’s stand in Geneva is all the more intriguing since it was only on February 28 that India launched a report written under the auspices of both the National Defence College and the Centre for Policy Research outlining a strategy for non-alignment in the 21^st century.

India had ball-by-ball description of progress of operation against LTTE

Sri Lanka's Minister Basil Rajapaksa and India's Pranab Mukerjee at a meeting on bilateral matters (Photo courtesy: www.amila-kumanayake.blogspot.com)

The vote naturally angered Sri Lanka. India despite its history of having trained and armed the LTTE on its soil had been an ally over the past several years. Sri Lanka and India had stood together over the final years of the conflict with consultations at the highest levels as frequently as weekly at certain stages. It was not uncommon for senior ministers of the Sri Lanka government to fly to New Delhi with only a day’s notice to brief the Indian government on the progress on the ground. Similarly Indian Ministers and senior officials would fly over to Colombo and meet even President Mahinda Rajapaksa even if he was away in Kandy. The leaders would also converse regularly on the telephone.

Vote against Sri Lanka has angered Indians

India’s volte-face also drew much flak from within the country. Many including well-known journalists took to twitter condemning the Indian government for its stance and warning of the dangers ahead. Kanchan Gupta, Writer, Journalist and Associate Editor of The Pioneer was one such who used twitter to drive home a strong message. On March 19, he tweeted, “A vote against Sri Lanka at UNHRC is, ultimately, a vote against India's national interest. Tragic to see Indians pushing for it.”

He was even more forceful in a column titled, ‘Helping ‘realise’ Tamil Eelam’, where he said,

“It’s akin to the Government of India endorsing separatism in Jammu & Kashmir and standing by those individuals and organisations in Pakistan who fuel and promote this separatism. If that is unacceptable to us, then there is no reason why we should not find Karunanidhi’s ‘unrealised dream’ and Manmohan Singh abusing his executive authority to help realise that dream odious and objectionable.”

Another of @KanchanGupta’s tweets gave a hint of what has been india’s long-standing policy in dealing with Sri Lanka. “@dhume01 I think it was Bandung. Nehru summoned Bandaranaike, asked him to show his speech, set it aside and told him he would redraft it.”

It was India’s Big Brother policy; India would do as it wanted with small Sri Lanka.

Having nurtured the LTTE’s armed terrorism India was sadly jolted from its complacency when the monster struck with ferocious intensity killing former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi with a human bomb. India began to change its policy towards Sri Lanka but not before helping nurture the seed of separatism in Tamilnadu, no doubt to the delight of western nations who replaced colonial authoritarianism with democracy. Democracy as we have seen is a more pliable mechanism that western nations have used to change regimes at will and exploit the resources that rightfully belong to the citizens of that country.

 Sri Lanka not amused by India’s alignment with US

Sri Lanka was not amused with India’s stand at the UNHRC. President Mahinda Rajapakse has said human rights are a part of Sri Lankan history and that Sri Lankans have been protecting human rights since the introduction of Buddhism to the country. External Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris in a statement following the vote said,

“It is a matter of great satisfaction to us that 15 countries voted with Sri Lanka, despite the intensity of pressure, in a variety of forms, exerted on them all.  We convey to them our warm thanks and deep appreciation.

We also thank sincerely the 8 countries which, by abstaining, declined to support the Resolution.

With 15 countries voting with Sri Lanka, and 8 countries abstaining, the final result was that 23 countries, out of a total of 47 members of the Human Rights Council, did not support the Resolution, while 24 supported it. The margin was as narrow as this.”

The statement added,

“This is a highly selective and arbitrary process not governed by objective norms or criteria of any kind.  The implications of this were not lost on many countries.

As far as Sri Lanka is concerned, our policy in respect of all matters will continue to be guided by the vital interests and wellbeing of the people of our country.  It hardly requires emphasis that this cannot yield place to any other consideration.”

That was obviously why Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh sought to placate Sri Lanka and wrote a letter to Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa. The resolution united Sri Lankans not only within the country but outside as well in their outrage against the foreign interference. Singh’s placatory letter is unlikely to impress the island’s 20 million inhabitants who have begun to enjoy the benefits of peace. Three decades of bitter conflict cannot easily be erased from memory and any attempt to drive a wedge in the country’s social fabric under the pretext of safeguarding human rights is unlikely to succeed. Many would however admit to the necessity for improvements in law and order; an endeavour already underway that needs acceleration.

 Vote scares small countries

India stood out as the only country in Asia to have voted against Sri Lanka. The implications are enormous. It has effectively abrogated its role as the superpower in South Asia. By aligning itself with the west India has alienated itself and departed from the long-held policy of non-alignment. In the future, neighbors and small countries will both step warily around India unless and until it is seen to demonstrate a firm foreign policy that balances national interests with regional and global realities. Smaller countries in the Indian Ocean region which looked up to India would in particular need to be reassured that India respects the principles of sovereignty and security of countries. These assurances would have to be demonstrated practically at the bilateral and multi-lateral levels and not be limited only to pious pronouncements.

Has India again encouraged separatism in Sri Lanka?

The dangers are even greater. Sri Lanka has warned India that the vote in Geneva could be used as a precedent to bring a similar resolution on Kashmir. It was more than conjecture that entities in western countries if not the countries themselves aided the LTTE and the call for a separate state in Sri Lanka. The efforts of western nations to save LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran appear to reinforce the view that western countries wished to encourage a separate state in Sri Lanka.

Democracy as a tool for ‘regime change’

Recent events in India tend to give more perspective on the rationale for such a policy. However, to understand the implications for India and the region, it is necessary to briefly view the reasons for the end of the ‘cold war’ and events in its aftermath. The cold war ended only with the dismantling of the Soviet Union and its allies such as Yugoslavia. Gradually western capitalism has eroded the social fabric in these countries replacing the authoritarian communist governments with ones where power resides with a wealthy elite and corruption is rampant.

More recently, Iraq was invaded under the protection of UN resolutions on the basis the country possessed weapons of mass destruction, a claim that has since been disproved. The ‘Arab Spring’ began in Tunisia where despite the optimism many are still frustrated well over a year after the revolution. Egypt which was stable despite the lack of democracy is now in continuous turmoil with religious intolerance a major issue. Libya is still an unknown melting pot. More recently a coup was staged in Mali. Interestingly, one of the coup leaders has said that he received training from the US Marines and Intelligence. Some of these events have had direct intervention by western countries led by the US or NATO or both under the protective umbrella of UN resolutions. In many of the ‘Arab Spring’ revolts speculation has been rife that western countries have been catalysing democracy by encouraging, training and even arming ‘dissidents’. Critics including Russia have accused the west of meddling in Syria.

In this context it is interesting to note US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarks at the opening of the Anna Centenary Library in Chennai in July 2011. She said, “President Obama made a state visit to India last year. I have been here twice in the last two years. And why, one might ask? Why are we coming to India so often and welcoming Indian officials to Washington as well? It’s because we understand that much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia, and that much of the future of Asia will be shaped by decisions not only of the Indian Government in New Delhi, but of governments across India, and perhaps, most importantly, by the 1.3 billion people who live in this country.”

India part of US Global Strategy

President Barack Obama of the United States and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in a warm embrace. (Photo courtesy: www.rediff.com)

 India as the world’s largest democracy is already a global superpower. Unlike China, its Asian neighbour which compares easily and even exceeds on population and land mass, India has 28 democratically elected state governments with defined state borders. India’s more than one billion population is a ready market for goods whether from the west or the east. During a time of economic recession the west is undoubtedly keen to harness this great resource.

Addressing the US – India Strategic Dialogue Secretary Clinton said, “Each of our countries can do more to reduce barriers, open our markets, and find new opportunities for economic partnership.  Taking these steps is in our mutual interest.  We can improve millions of lives and increase both of our nations’ economic competitiveness.”

Speaking at the opening of the Anna Centenary Library in Chennai, she went on to stress the global superpower’s reliance on India as a market. “Well, speaking for the United States, I can tell you that we are, in fact, betting on India’s future. We are betting that the opening of India’s markets to the world will produce a more prosperous India and a more prosperous South Asia. It will also spill over into Central Asia and beyond into the Asia Pacific region.”

“There is no better place to discuss India’s leadership in the region to its east than here in Chennai. In this port city, looking out at the Bay of Bengal and beyond to the nations of East and Southeast Asia, we are easily reminded of India’s historic role in the wider region.” Clinton used the opportunity to strike a chord with Tamilnadu’s population sympathetic to their brethren in Sri Lanka, “Here in Chennai, we can see how much a society can achieve when all citizens fully are participating in the political and economic life of their country. Every citizen of Sri Lanka deserves the same hope and opportunity for a better future,” she said to applause from the audience in Chennai.

Scope of Tamil Separatism

Map showing Tamilnadu in South India and proposed state of Tamil Eelam in the north and east of Sri Lanka (Courtesy: www.en.wikipedia.org)

A separate state in Sri Lanka as envisaged by the LTTE and its supporters would have afforded the western countries unfettered access to the coveted Trincomalee port – the world’s largest natural harbour as well as two-thirds of the country’s coastline together with some of the most valuable natural resources. More importantly it would have hastened the break-up of India with each of the states becoming an independent country. It is quite likely that this ‘Indian Spring’ would have begun in Tamilnadu where even now leading politicians are promoting a separate state in Sri Lanka. Tamil nationalism in India has been discussed elsewhere in greater detail by Dr. Dayan Jayatillleka. The idea is well illustrated in the map on the Facebook page titled, Tamil nadu separatism.

A separate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka and another in Tamilnadu would have opened a contiguous area of sea that would have been open for the west to exploit. Today the sea-routes between east and west pass very close to the coast across Sri Lanka’s territorial waters. Western countries could also be eyeing Sri Lanka as a potential spacecraft launch pad being very close to the equator and having sufficient sea area in the event of an aborted flight or for the jettisoning of used stages of rockets. 

Pain of Partition a reason for India to remain united

India's partition was a traumatic experience for both Indians and Pakistanis (Photo courtesy: www.johnbatchelorshow.com)

A united India has so far not shown itself as a military threat to any other country. Any break will be more painful than the partition of India when even desks and chairs were reported to have been broken into a third and shipped to Pakistan. (This was reported in a detailed report in the Readers’ Digest many years ago.) It would prove to be a lucrative market for a short period till conflicts between states begin to create huge complications as landlocked states depend on access through others. India needs to remain united both for its own and for global stability.

By isolating itself from other countries that wished away any assault on their sovereignty, India has shot itself in the foot. On an occasion when even strong allies of the United States saw the dangers and decided to vote against the resolution, India has not only hurt Sri Lanka, its closest neighbour with whom it shares even the Ramayana, but left itself wide open and vulnerable. END.

(Follow the writer on twitter: @Panhinda)