Peace cannot be built through war
“In war, the loudest sound is not the explosion of bombs, but the silent cry of innocent people who lose everything.”
Every war begins with promises of security. It ends with funeral processions, broken homes, frightened children and shattered economies. The ongoing conflict involving Iran, Israel and the United States is proving once again that wars rarely solve the problems they are meant to address. Instead, they often create new crises while ordinary people pay the highest price.
The first justification for confronting Iran was that it was supposedly on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. But an important question remains. If building a nuclear bomb had been Tehran’s immediate objective, why did Iran sign the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? Under the agreement, Iran accepted strict international inspections and reduced its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by nearly 98 per cent. A country determined to rush towards a nuclear weapon would hardly agree to such extensive restrictions and monitoring.
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, repeatedly declared that nuclear weapons violated Islamic principles. Many questioned whether those statements reflected genuine policy or political strategy. That debate continues. What is undeniable is that the nuclear agreement imposed unprecedented limits on Iran’s programme and was widely regarded by many experts as the most effective mechanism for preventing nuclear proliferation.
The situation changed dramatically after the United States withdrew from the agreement in 2018. The collapse of the deal weakened trust, reduced international oversight and pushed all sides towards confrontation instead of dialogue. Diplomatic bridges were slowly replaced by military calculations.
As the conflict intensified, the reasons for war also appeared to shift. At first, the world was told that military action was necessary to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Later, protecting freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz became the dominant argument. Ironically, the Strait had remained open before the bombing campaign began. Today, because of the war itself, that vital waterway has become one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints. A conflict launched in the name of preventing instability has instead multiplied instability across the region.
The fighting is no longer confined to Iran and Israel. American military facilities in the Gulf have becomes potential targets. Bahrain, home to the United States Fifth Fleet, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates now face growing security risks because of their strategic partnerships with Washington.
The activities of Yemen’s Houthi movement have added another layer of uncertainty by threatening shipping routes in the Red Sea. Every missile launched raises fears that the conflict may spread across the entire Gulf region.
The greatest tragedy is that civilians have no escape from the consequences. Families live under constant fear of missile attacks. Workers lose their livelihoods. Children grow up hearing air raid sirens instead of school bells. Hospitals struggle to function. Refugee numbers increase. Global oil prices fluctuate. Inflation rises. Countries thousands of kilometres away also feel the economic shock through higher fuel costs and disrupted supply chains. Modern wars no longer remain local; they quickly become global burdens.
One uncomfortable reality deserves greater attention. Every major conflict creates enormous financial opportunities for a small group of beneficiaries. Defence manufacturers receive record orders. Energy companies profit from volatile oil prices. Financial markets react to every rumour of war or peace. Speculators make fortunes from uncertainty while ordinary citizens struggle with rising living costs. This is the dark face of crony capitalism, where prolonged instability becomes profitable for a few while millions suffer its consequences.
None of this means that security concerns are imaginary. Israel has genuine security fears. Iran has legitimate concerns about sanctions, external pressure and regional isolation. The Gulf monarchies worry about their own survival. The United States seeks to protect its strategic interests and allies. These concerns cannot simply be dismissed. But history has repeatedly shown that bombs cannot permanently eliminate fear. They only postpone it until the next conflict.
What the region desperately needs is not another military offensive but another diplomatic breakthrough. Here, India has a unique role to play. India’s foreign policy has long been guided by the principles of dialogue, peaceful coexistence, strategic balance and respect for sovereignty. This spirit of Dharma Diplomacy - seeking justice without vengeance and peace without surrender - offers an alternative to endless cycles of retaliation. India enjoys goodwill across West Asia and maintains constructive relations with countries on opposing sides.
That diplomatic capital should be used to encourage negotiations rather than escalation.
The world has witnessed enough wars fought in the name of peace. Every generation promises that the next conflict will be the last. Every generation discovers that violence only plants the seeds of another war. Lasting peace cannot be built through missiles alone. It requires patience, trust, compromise and courageous diplomacy.
The Middle East does not need another battlefield. It needs another negotiating table. The international community must realise that no military victory can compensate for the destruction of human lives. Every child saved from war is a greater victory than any territory captured on a battlefield.
“The true measure of a nation’s strength is not how many wars it can fight, but how many lives it can save by preventing one.”
The writer is a Professor, Centre for South Asian Studies, School of International Studies & Social Sciences, Pondicherry Central University; Views presented are personal.
