What Happened
- Following US-Israeli airstrikes on Iran on February 28, 2026, world leaders largely responded with caution rather than outright condemnation or support, reflecting a sharp global diplomatic split.
- Canada, Australia, and Ukraine expressed support for the US and Israel; Russia condemned the strikes as "unprovoked aggression"; China called for an immediate halt and return to negotiations.
- Many nations — including India and several Global South countries — avoided directly condemning the strikes or endorsing them, calling broadly for restraint and de-escalation.
- European states (Germany, France, UK) condemned Iranian retaliatory strikes against Gulf Arab states while also calling for a return to negotiations.
- Pakistan and Malaysia explicitly condemned the US-Israeli strikes; most Arab states remained notably silent.
- The cautious response from many nations reflects fear of straining relations with both the US (dominant trade and security partner) and Iran.
Static Topic Bridges
The Global South and Strategic Autonomy in Multilateral Diplomacy
The "Global South" — a loose grouping of developing nations across Asia, Africa, and Latin America — has increasingly sought to assert independent foreign policy positions rather than aligning with either Western-led or Russia-China led blocs. The principle of "strategic autonomy" (maintaining independent positions, avoiding binding bloc commitments) is central to this posture. India is a leading articulator of this doctrine.
- India's strategic autonomy: Rooted in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) tradition (1955 Bandung Conference, 1961 Belgrade Summit founding NAM) but now framed as "multi-alignment" — engaging all major powers simultaneously.
- The 2022 Russia-Ukraine war established a precedent: India, China, Brazil, South Africa, and many Global South nations abstained from UNGA resolutions condemning Russia.
- SCO opt-out: India did not sign the SCO statement condemning Israel's strikes on Iran — consistent with its refusal to condemn either side.
- The Non-Aligned Movement (120+ member states) has met in recent years but remains weakly institutionalized; the G77 is a more active economic grouping.
Connection to this news: The cautious response from most of the Global South mirrors the pattern seen in the Ukraine war — countries with complex trade, energy, or security ties to both the US and Iran chose deliberate ambiguity over principled alignment.
US Alliances and the "Hub and Spokes" Security Architecture
US foreign policy in Asia and globally is organized around a "hub and spokes" model — the US as hub, with bilateral alliances (NATO, US-Japan, US-South Korea, US-Australia, etc.) as spokes. This architecture creates asymmetric obligations: allies are expected to support US-led military operations or face diplomatic consequences, while the US provides security guarantees and market access. The Iran strikes tested the durability of this alliance structure.
- NATO (Article 5): Collective defense commitment — an attack on one is an attack on all; however, the Iran strikes were US-initiated offensive action, not defensive.
- AUKUS (2021): Australia-UK-US nuclear submarine pact; Australia's support for Iran strikes was consistent with its deepening alignment with US security posture.
- Five Eyes: Intelligence-sharing alliance (US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) — all broadly supportive of the strikes or neutral.
- Gulf monarchies: Despite hosting US bases used in the strikes, publicly remained silent to avoid Iranian retaliation and domestic Shia population backlash.
- Europe's position (Germany, France, UK): Condemned Iranian retaliation against Gulf states, but called for negotiations — a middle-ground formula.
Connection to this news: Supporters of the strikes (Canada, Australia, Ukraine) are embedded in the US alliance system; the cautious majority reflects the limits of US alliance solidarity when the action is offensive rather than defensive.
Non-Interference Principle and Sovereignty Norms in International Relations
The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states is enshrined in UN Charter Article 2(7) and is a cornerstone of the Westphalian international order established in 1648. It holds that states have sovereign authority over their territory and that external powers may not lawfully intervene without consent or UN authorization. Developing nations — particularly those in Asia and Africa — have historically been strong advocates of non-interference, given their experience of colonial intervention.
- UN Charter Article 2(7): "Nothing in the Charter shall authorize the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."
- Panchsheel (Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, 1954): India-China agreement enunciating mutual non-aggression, non-interference, and peaceful coexistence — remains a reference point for India's diplomatic language.
- Responsibility to Protect (R2P, 2005): UN-endorsed norm that sovereignty can be overridden to prevent mass atrocities — but explicitly requires Security Council authorization.
- Russia invoked non-interference and sovereignty in condemning the Iran strikes; China echoed the same framing, consistent with their positions on Western military interventions.
Connection to this news: The condemnation language used by Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and Malaysia — centered on "sovereignty," "territorial integrity," and "international law" — reflects the non-interference framework, while US justification invoked self-defense, creating a fundamental normative clash.
India's Bilateral Relations with Key Parties: The Balancing Act
India maintains substantive bilateral relationships with the United States, Israel, Iran, and Gulf Arab states simultaneously. Each relationship involves strategic dependencies that make overt alignment with any single party in the Iran conflict costly. India's "multi-alignment" doctrine specifically aims to preserve optionality and avoid zero-sum choices.
- India-US: Comprehensive Global and Strategic Partnership (2023); Major Defense Partner; Quad member; India's largest trading partner (~$130 billion bilateral trade).
- India-Israel: Strategic relationship including defense, agriculture, and technology; Modi visited Israel in February 2026 — days before the strikes.
- India-Iran: Chabahar Port agreement (2024); INSTC; historical oil imports (ended 2019 due to US sanctions); large Shia minority with Iran connections.
- India-Gulf: $50 billion+ annual remittances; 9 million Indian diaspora; 60%+ of crude oil from Gulf.
- India's MEA position: Called for "restraint," "dialogue and diplomacy" — refusing to name either side as aggressor.
Connection to this news: India's cautious, fence-sitting response to the Iran strikes is a direct expression of its multi-alignment doctrine — a posture that most Global South nations mirrored, albeit for their own bilateral reasons.
Key Facts & Data
- Nations explicitly supporting strikes: Canada, Australia, Ukraine.
- Nations explicitly condemning strikes: Russia ("unprovoked aggression"), China, Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran (obviously).
- Nations cautious/abstaining: India, most Arab states, EU broadly (condemned Iranian retaliation but called for negotiations).
- India: Did not sign SCO statement condemning Israeli strikes; MEA called for restraint and dialogue.
- Modi visited Israel February 2026 days before strikes — drew domestic political criticism.
- Russia statement: "Unprovoked armed aggression," demanded immediate ceasefire.
- China statement: "Highly concerned," called for "immediate halt" and return to negotiations.
- European (UK, France, Germany): Condemned Iranian retaliatory strikes on Gulf states; called for negotiations.
- Pakistan FM: Called US-Israeli strikes "baseless" and demanded "immediate halt to escalating tensions."
- Malaysia PM Anwar Ibrahim: Warned conflict pushed Middle East to "edge of catastrophe."