Congress’s Israel-Iran Statement: Selective Outrage or Diplomatic Misfire?

Paromita Das
New Delhi, 17th June:  In the realm of domestic politics, opposition is expected. But when that opposition spills onto the global stage—especially at the cost of national interest and strategic consistency—it raises uncomfortable questions. Time and again, the Indian National Congress has projected itself not merely as a political rival to the Modi government, but as a near-permanent adversary. Whether the issue is Bharat’s border standoff with China, its internal policies on national security, or its diplomatic alliances, Congress often appears more interested in contradicting the government than standing with the nation.

Nowhere is this pattern more evident than in Bharat’s approach to West Asia. Bharat has historically stood by Israel, not only as a defense partner but as a democratic-ally in a volatile region. Yet, Congress’s tone continues to drift toward countries that have demonstrated clear hostility toward Israel—and by extension, toward Bharat’s broader security interests.

This contradiction came to light once again on June 15, when tensions in West Asia escalated following Israel’s targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. In an unusually sharp condemnation, Congress General Secretary Jairam Ramesh took to platform X to decry Israel’s actions, branding them as “a dangerous escalation with grave regional and global consequences.”

But as the post circulated, something critical was missing. There was no mention of the fact that Israel’s actions came in response to a volley of Iranian ballistic missile attacks that had already left Israeli civilians dead, homes destroyed, and entire neighborhoods scarred. There was no balancing of perspectives, no call for Iran to cease its aggression—only a blanket denunciation of Israel’s military response.

In a region where nuance is survival, the lack of it from Bharat’s principal opposition party raised more than eyebrows. It raised serious questions.

A One-Sided Take in a Two-Sided Conflict

Congress’s statement, while dressed in the language of peace, felt curiously selective. Ramesh wrote that “the Indian National Congress unequivocally condemns Israel’s recent bombings and targeted assassinations on Iranian soil,” claiming they would “deepen instability and sow the seeds of further conflict.”

Yet he offered no acknowledgment that these Israeli strikes were not unprovoked. Iranian ballistic missiles had already hit civilian homes in cities like Rishon LeZion. Two people—an elderly man and a woman—were killed. These weren’t military targets. They were families.

Two people were killed in the Iranian missile strike on a residential neighborhood in Rishon LeZion.

All the regular "war crimes experts" are surprisingly quiet this morning. pic.twitter.com/HOkRVrXbEp

— Mark Zlochin – מארק זלוצ'ין༝ (@MarkZlochin) June 14, 2025

Meanwhile, Israel’s strikes were aimed at military infrastructure and nuclear facilities—a strategic response, not blind retaliation. What’s more, Israel even issued civilian warnings before targeting installations near populated areas, a measure Iran didn’t bother with during its own attacks.

Congress’s silence on these crucial details left its statement feeling incomplete at best—and biased at worst.

Bharat’s Stakes in the West Asian Powder Keg

Jairam Ramesh emphasized Bharat’s diplomatic leverage and its vital interest in West Asia, especially with lakhs of Bharatiya citizens living and working across the region. He urged Bharat to act as a peace-building bridge, leveraging ties with both Israel and Iran.

That’s a valid point. Bharat’s diaspora, economic partnerships, and energy dependencies mean that peace in West Asia is not a luxury—it’s a necessity.

But if Bharat is to be a credible voice for de-escalation, it must be perceived as neutral, consistent, and honest. Selective outrage—condemning Israel while ignoring Iranian aggression—does not build credibility. It erodes it. Worse, it exposes Bharat to charges of moral inconsistency at a time when global powers are already aligning along hardened ideological lines.

Peace Cannot Be Built on Partisan Narratives

The Congress party’s approach reflects more political posturing than principled diplomacy. It seeks to wear the garb of peace-making while playing to certain ideological or political constituencies. But global affairs demand more than domestic calibration.

Let’s be clear: Israel’s strike may be controversial. It may raise valid concerns about escalation. But when such a strike follows days of missile attacks on its civilians—launched without warning by a nation pursuing nuclear capability—any criticism must also address that provocation.

Peace isn’t upheld by ignoring the first stone. It’s upheld by acknowledging every stone thrown, by every side.

If the Congress party genuinely wishes to advocate diplomacy and de-escalation, then it must start by being even-handed. It must call out Iran’s recklessness as strongly as it critiques Israel’s response. Anything less is not diplomacy—it’s diplomatic theatre.

Credibility Demands Consistency

The Israel-Iran crisis will continue to evolve. But Bharat’s response—whether from the government or the opposition—must be clear, balanced, and grounded in facts. The Congress party’s June 15 statement failed that test.

By condemning Israel’s strategic retaliation while ignoring Iran’s unprovoked missile strikes on civilians, Congress didn’t just betray imbalance—it jeopardized the very credibility it claimed to uphold. It weakened Bharat’s ability to be seen as a fair broker in a volatile region.

In international diplomacy, posturing may win short-term points, but consistency wins long-term trust. As West Asia teeters on the brink, Bharat must choose the latter.