Travel & Tourism Fair, Mumbai 2026
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

This image taken from video broadcast by Al-Masirah TV, a Houthi-controlled news channel, shows an explosion at the Sanaa International Airport compound during what the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said were several Saudi airstrikes in Sanaa, Yemen, July 13, 2026. (Al-Masirah TV via AP, File)

The language of world politics has become remarkably predictable. Every military strike, diplomatic initiative, economic sanction, or strategic partnership is justified in the name of national interest. Television debates and commentaries have a common vocabulary — power, deterrence, balance of power, strategic autonomy, and security. It almost appears as though International Relations has become an emotionless discipline, focused on power concentration, where morality and ethics have little place. Yet the defining geopolitical crises of recent years tell a very different story.

Influence of Western traditions

International Relations, both as an academic discipline and as a practice of diplomacy, has been largely shaped by Western intellectual traditions, with much of academic research originating in the United States of America. No wonder, famous IR scholar, Stanley Hoffman, in his article, argued that IR is an American Social Science. It is difficult to refute Hoffman’s argument because initially the modern international order emerged when European powers dominated much of the world, leaving the Global South with little role in designing the institutions, norms, and rules that continue to govern global politics. However, the discipline itself acquired its modern identity after the Second World War, with the U.S. based scholar, Hans Morgenthau’s Realism becoming the dominant framework for understanding international affairs. Realism portrays the international system as anarchic and argues that states, in the absence of a central authority, are compelled to pursue their national interests. Although the theory is far more nuanced than its popular interpretation suggests, public discourse has reduced it to two defining ideas—anarchy and national interest. Over time, Realism travelled from classrooms to newsrooms, becoming the default language through which foreign policy is interpreted.

There is much to appreciate in the Realist tradition. It reminds us that power, military capability, and strategic calculations remain central to international politics. However, the dominance of Realism has also encouraged the belief that foreign policy is little more than a rational pursuit of national interest. Ethical considerations are often dismissed as idealistic, while emotions are treated as irrational distractions. Yet certain recent scholarships in International Relations have increasingly challenged this assumption. Scholars such as Neta Crawford have argued that emotions are not the opposite of rationality; rather, they are integral to political judgment. Fear, grief, anger, humiliation, empathy, and pride actively shape how leaders interpret threats, define interests, and respond to crises. Foreign policy, therefore, is not merely an exercise in cold strategic calculation, but also a product of moral perceptions and collective emotions. This dynamic is encapsulated by scholar Brent Sasley, who notes that while state leaders make formal decisions as members of a group, “they do so within a particular (social) context and on that (social) basis”.

Question of political legitimacy

The recent U.S.-Iran conflict illustrates this point. Much of the strategic analysis focused on military capabilities, damage assessments, and the future balance of power in West Asia. Comparatively little attention was paid to the emotional and ethical consequences of the conflict. The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was not only Iran’s Supreme Leader but also one of the most influential religious figures in the Shia world, produced consequences that extended far beyond military calculations. Rather than weakening the Iranian state, his death generated an extraordinary wave of national solidarity. A society that had appeared politically divided only months earlier united around a shared sense of loss, nationalism, and religious identity. Crawford’s observation that grief and the desire for revenge continue to shape political behaviour long after the battlefield has fallen silent is particularly relevant in this context. Military planners may calculate strategic gains, but societies often respond through memory, identity, and emotion. Therefore, it is important to note that foreign policy must not be judged solely by the actions of a government, but also by how those actions shape and influence global public opinion. The debate surrounding the assassination largely focused on how Washington would engage with a post-Khamenei Iran. Far less attention was devoted to the ethical questions raised by such an operation and its implications for America’s moral standing. Strategic success does not automatically translate into political legitimacy.

The changing international perception of Israel offers another important example. Following the Hamas attacks of October 2023, Israel received widespread sympathy and support across much of the world. Most governments affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself. However, as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepened, due to mindless aggression shown by the Israeli army, public opinion began to shift. Large demonstrations across Europe and North America reflected growing concerns over civilian suffering and questioned the proportionality of Israel’s military response. In this, governments and societies increasingly spoke in different voices. While many governments continued to emphasise security considerations, public opinion became increasingly influenced by humanitarian concerns. Thus, while military superiority can alter realities on the battlefield, it cannot prevent the erosion of moral legitimacy.

Ethical concerns over globalisation

History offers numerous examples of ethics shaping international politics. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. consistently presented itself as the defender of democracy, human rights, and individual liberty while portraying Soviet communism as an authoritarian system hostile to political freedom. The post-war liberal international order derived much of its legitimacy not merely from military and economic strength but also from its claim to uphold universal values. Even globalisation was promoted as a project that would bring societies closer together through greater interdependence and cooperation. Although globalisation generated unprecedented economic growth, it failed to bridge the structural inequalities between the Global North and the Global South, leading many to question whether the liberal international order had fulfilled its ethical promises.

The position of Global South

Historically, the Global South has been among the most vocal in injecting moral considerations into international politics. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) was not merely a strategy to avoid Cold War rivalries; it represented a normative vision of sovereign equality and a collective call for a more just world order. Contemporary India continues to invoke similar ideas through its emphasis on the Global South and the civilisational philosophy of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’— the world is one family. Notably, India’s international standing has historically rested not only on its growing economic and strategic capabilities but also on its democratic institutions, pluralism, and anti-colonial legacy. During the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, for instance, international public opinion gradually shifted in India’s favour after the humanitarian catastrophe in East Pakistan became widely known. More recently, India’s consistent opposition to cross-border terrorism has enjoyed broad international support because it resonates with widely accepted ethical norms.

This moral capital, however, cannot be taken for granted; it must be continuously reinforced through consistent foreign policy choices. For instance, India’s relatively restrained response to recent developments in West Asia has generated debate over whether its pursuit of strategic autonomy truly aligns with the ethical principles it frequently projects on the international stage. Ultimately, India’s international standing is built on more than just its market size. It is widely applauded as a vibrant, multicultural nation where democracy has successfully endured, even when it faltered in other developing countries facing similar socio-economic conditions.

In conclusion, it is a mistake to interpret International Relations merely as the study of the redistribution of power; it is equally crucial to understand how that power is evaluated. In a world defined by Artificial Intelligence, digital media, transnational activism, and instantaneous communication, wars are no longer judged solely by governments or strategic analysts. Instead, real-time images of civilian suffering, humanitarian crises, and political violence actively shape international narratives as they unfold. While Realism remains highly relevant for explaining why states pursue power and security, achieving a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of world politics requires us to examine how societies accept, reject, or morally evaluate that power.

(Dhananjay Tripathi teaches International Relations at the South Asian University, New Delhi.)

Published – July 29, 2026 08:00 am IST

A man walks next to a symbolic mockup of an Iranian missile and an Iranian flag at Imam Hussein Square in Tehran, Iran, on July 12, 2026
| Photo Credit: via Reuters

At the interbank foreign exchange market, the rupee opened at 95.52 and remained weaker against the U.S. dollar, down 4 paise from its previous close. File
| Photo Credit: Getty Images/istockphoto

Iran prepared on Friday (July 3, 2026) for the dayslong funeral of the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with banners across Tehran urging the public to rise up in support of the Islamic Republic after the devastating war that killed the 86-year-old cleric.

The country’s theocracy plans to see millions flood the streets of the capital beginning on Saturday (July 4, 2026) in scenes reminiscent of the burial of the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989.

That could provide a boost for Iran’s government, particularly as it tries to leverage its hold on the Strait of Hormuz in negotiations with the United States over a permanent end to the war, and as concern still lingers that Israel could attack yet again.

Despite that, a powerful general who leads Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard emerged publicly for the first time in months for the funeral. Other top government officials will also likely will be on hand alongside foreign dignitaries in a show of strength of Iran.

“As long as these people, who are chosen (by God), are on the field, we will definitely continue the same ‘no to humiliation’ policy that was founded by the Islamic Republic,” said Mohammad Hossein Rezaei, a volunteer preparing for the funeral on Friday (July 3, 2026).

“We will continue our policy of pursuing independence, and decisions will be made inside the country, and the people will decide their own fate,” he said.

Caskets displayed in Tehran

Khamenei’s flag-draped coffin sat at Tehran’s Grand Mosalla alongside family members killed in the Israeli airstrike that came in the first moments of the war on February 28.

The dead being honoured include a son-in-law, his eldest daughter, a 14-month-old granddaughter and the wife of Iran’s new Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the previous leader who remains in hiding after reportedly being wounded in the attack.

Religious leaders and foreign dignitaries walked up to Khamenei’s casket as a military band played or a man sang prayers. Iran’s Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and President Masoud Pezeshkian, key leaders in the country’s civilian government, all paid their respects.

Video published by Iranian state media showed an earlier mourning ceremony on Thursday (July 2, 2026) night for Khamenei. The black-clad mourners, whom state media identified as coming from families of those who lost loved ones in the 12-day war in 2025 and the recent Iran war, threw scarves and other items for attendants to brush against the coffin, a common practice in Iran seen as a blessing.

Later, state media showed images of Khamenei’s casket draped by a red flag with white calligraphy reading “Ya Hussein,” a Shiite expression in remembrance of the 7th-century martyrdom of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson. It had been flying over the Imam Hussein golden-domed shrine in Karbala, Iraq. The flag also traditionally symbolises both the spilled blood of someone unjustly killed and a call for vengeance.

Top general appears for first time in months

Photos published online by Iranian state media showed Gen Ahmad Vahidi attending a meeting on Thursday (July 2, 2026) about the funeral of Khamenei, then sitting alongside his casket as Iran’s theocracy held a smaller service for him Thursday (July 2, 2026) night near the supreme leader’s former home in downtown Tehran.

“They must know that the pure blood of our martyred imam will mark another turning point in the victories of beloved Islam across the global arena,” Mr. Vahidi told state television in comments aired on Friday (July 3, 2026). “They will take to their graves the wish to see this nation surrender. This nation will rise higher day by day through this pure blood.”

Mr. Vahidi has become a major player in formulating Iran’s tough stance in negotiating a possible permanent end to the war with the United States, experts say. He had not been seen publicly since February 8, weeks before the Iran war began.

Israel killed top leaders in Iran’s military and government during the war, and has threatened the life of Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei as well. Vahidi is believed to be part of a small clique in direct contact with the younger Khamenei.

It remains unclear whether Khamenei will appear at his father’s funeral. His father appeared in 1989 at Khomeini’s funeral, weeping visibly, as he began his journey to lead Iran for decades with an iron fist while confronting the West.

Israel’s repeated threats to kill Khamenei drew a warning from Iran’s joint military command on Thursday (July 2, 2026).

“We warn the enemies of a strong Iran, especially the United States, the Israeli regime and their regional and extraregional accomplices, to avoid any miscalculation and to consider the harsh and regret-inducing responses that the sons of the Iranian nation in the armed forces will give to any threat or aggression against our beloved country,” the military command said.

Funeral to go on for days

Beginning Saturday (July 4, 2026), Iran will hold the days-long funeral for Khamenei, and his body will be transported to cities in both Iran and neighbouring Iraq. Authorities plan to shut down streets, airspace and daily life in Tehran as mourners commemorate the life of Khamenei.

In Tehran, images of the late Khamenei’s fist could be seen in banners and in a giant statue in Tehran’s Enghelab Square, framed by what appeared to be ballistic missiles flying through the air.

In his first message to the nation, read by a state television anchor, Mojtaba Khamenei said he saw his father’s body after his death with raised, clenched fist.

The banners read in Arabic, English and Farsi: “We must rise.”

“This fist is the clenched fist of all us Muslims,” taxi driver Jafar Javadi said. “The leader’s fist is a sign all our fists are clenched and they (the enemies) will be destroyed with these fists, God willing. We will continue chanting death to America and death to Israel with the same clenched fist.”

Published – July 03, 2026 10:26 pm IST

The United States said it downed multiple Iranian drones targeting commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz early Saturday (June 13, 2026), hours after both sides said a deal to end the West Asia war was closer than ever.

West Asia war LIVE updates on June 13, 2026

The interception came after weeks of halting talks between Tehran and Washington, mediated by Pakistan, that have been marked by threats and exchanges of fire despite a fragile truce agreed in April.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees operations in the region, posted on X that Iran had “launched multiple one-way attack drones in an attempt to strike commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz”.

“U.S. forces have downed all of them in recent hours as traffic flow through the strait continues unimpeded,” it said.

CENTCOM added that the Strait of Hormuz — a key maritime trade route for oil and gas from the Gulf — “remains open for transit”, despite an Iranian enforced blockade since the start of the war.

Disagreements between the two sides have persisted, with Iranian state media publishing a breakdown of what was purportedly on the table that was at odds with Washington’s account.

“The Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer,” Iran’s Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, wrote in a social media post, referring to the Pakistani capital that hosted previous U.S.-Iran talks.

Mr. Trump — who on Friday (June 12, 2026) morning accused the Iranians of negotiating in bad faith and misrepresenting the terms that had been agreed — posted a screenshot of Mr. Araghchi’s message on his own feed just hours later.

Mr. Araghchi provided some details on the agreement in an interview with state television, saying it calls for the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade of Iran’s ports and unspecified changes to the administration of the Strait of Hormuz.

He also said the only way to deal with the country’s enriched uranium — which Washington alleges is part of a nuclear weapons programme — “is to dilute it inside Iran”.

‘Not 100 percent’

Disputing Mr. Trump’s “bad faith” accusation, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said an agreement had now been reached with Washington “on most points”.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose country has been a key mediator since the initial talks, confirmed that “a final, agreed-upon text of the peace deal has been reached”.

“Peace has never been as close as it is now,” Mr. Sharif said, while acknowledging “incessant misinformation” surrounding the deal.

A senior U.S. official also voiced optimism that the parties would be “signing this agreement over the next few days”.

“If I were to give you a confidence that we were going to be signing this agreement, I maybe would have said 75% this morning, it’s probably more like 80-85% now, but it’s not 100%,” the official told reporters in a call.

The Swiss Foreign Ministry on Friday (June 12, 2026) said it had been in contact with both the United States and Iran, and had “proposed Switzerland as the venue for a possible signing, should the parties agree to it”.

But Mr. Araghchi said that upon finalisation, a draft deal with the United States would be signed “remotely”, adding that this could happen “in the coming days”.

U.S. ally Israel has said that Mr. Trump had promised it that any agreement would see Iran stripped of its enriched nuclear material, but Tehran’s official IRNA news agency said this was not even on the table.

‘Benefits will flow’

According to IRNA’s account, after an initial agreement is signed, Iran and the United States would hold 60 more days of talks and “Iran’s right to enrich uranium and the retention of enriched material… will be emphasised with a view to their inclusion in the final agreement”.

Beyond this, according to IRNA, Iran would insist on managing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran has blockaded since the outbreak of the war, causing major disruptions to the global economy.

On Friday (June 12, 2026), Iran’s Mehr news agency, quoting a source close to the country’s negotiating team, said the deal would also see the release of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets.

But those details clashed with a summary offered by a senior White House official, who told AFP Iran had agreed to dismantle its nuclear programme, destroy its enriched uranium stockpile and reopen the strait — and that Tehran would not see any of its frozen funds returned until it had honoured these commitments.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance likewise said Iran was “not receiving any cash, and no funds are being released for simply signing a deal or attending a meeting”.

But, he added, if “Iran meets its obligations, then economic benefits will flow to them and to the entire region”.

Published – June 13, 2026 01:05 pm IST

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. File
| Photo Credit: Reuters

Image used for representation purpose only.
| Photo Credit: Reuters