I.              Legal Status of Israel’s Strikes on Iran

Israel’s recent military attacks on Iran raise a significant question for the international community: are these actions lawful under international law?

Legal Framework on the Use of Force:

UN Charter Restrictions:

• Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force in international relations.
• Article 51 allows an exception for self-defence if an armed attack occurs, subject to necessity and proportionality.

According to international law expert Marko Milanovic, self-defence is triggered only by an actual armed attack. Since Iran or its proxies have not carried out a direct armed attack attributable to Iran, Israel’s current strikes lack a clear legal basis.

Pre-emptive and Anticipatory Self-Defence:

• Israel justifies its actions by claiming pre-emptive self-defence, citing Iran’s nuclear advancements as an existential threat.
• This type of self-defence is contentious and is not supported by Article 51, which requires an ongoing or imminent attack.

The Caroline Doctrine (1837) sets strict conditions for pre-emptive action:

• The threat must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice but to act immediately.
• The response must be proportional.

Interpretations of “Imminent” Threat:

• Narrow (Restrictive) View: An attack must be about to happen in the near future.
• Broad (Expansive) View: Imminence can include hypothetical or distant threats.

Legal consensus favors the narrow interpretation to prevent powerful states from abusing pre-emptive justifications based on speculation. The Caroline Doctrine supports this strict standard, emphasizing urgency and necessity.

Applying This to Israel’s Strikes:

Israel’s rationale, centered on Iran’s nuclear progress, aligns with the broad and legally unsupported interpretation of imminence. Without evidence of an immediate Iranian attack, the legal criteria for anticipatory self-defence remain unmet.

Significance of International Legal Norms:

• Accountability: International law, despite its limits, is the essential framework to judge state actions’ legitimacy.
• Ignoring these norms weakens global order and encourages unilateral aggression.
• Upholding legal principles is crucial to ensure states are held accountable, preserve international legitimacy, and avoid impunity—even in cases of violations.

II.            The Real Challenges of Foreign University Branch Campuses in India:

The arrival of foreign university branch campuses in India, spurred by the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) 2023 regulations, represents a significant shift in the country’s higher education landscape. With institutions like Australia’s Deakin University and University of Wollongong establishing campuses in Gujarat’s GIFT City, and the University of Southampton setting up in Gurugram, India is actively welcoming global academic players. Recently, Letters of Intent have been issued to five additional foreign universities, signalling growing momentum.

The Vision Behind Transnational Education

·       India’s push to allow foreign branch campuses is driven by the goal of internationalizing its higher education system, bringing in global expertise, and offering students the chance to experience world-class education domestically. Ideally, this policy could raise academic standards by introducing superior curricula, teaching methods, and academic cultures. It could also spur Indian private universities to innovate and enhance quality through healthy competition.

·       Yet, the initial phase of this initiative has been inconsistent. Some foreign campuses began admitting students before revealing crucial academic details such as faculty qualifications and curriculum content. This rush, possibly fueled by optimism or market forces, raises concerns about transparency, preparedness, and proper planning.

Challenges in an Already Crowded Education Sector

1.     Political and Global Uncertainties: Transnational education worldwide is facing uncertainty. For example, political shifts in the United States have constrained international expansion in higher education, making ventures like the Illinois Institute of Technology’s India campus rare exceptions rather than common practice. Additionally, many foreign institutions interested in India are not among the elite universities in their home countries. In India, where prestigious institutions like IITs and IIMs enjoy global recognition and are expanding international partnerships, foreign campuses may be perceived as second-tier unless they offer unique advantages.

2.     Struggle for Academic Identity: A critical issue is the lack of distinctive academic identity. Many foreign campuses offer popular, market-focused courses—business, data analytics, computer science—that Indian universities already excel in. Without a comprehensive academic mission or strong research focus, these campuses risk being seen as mere diploma mills, lacking depth and rigorous scholarship. Their limited scale and often temporary setups add to this perception.

3.     Excessive Dependence on Marketing: Another concern is the overreliance on marketing rather than academic substance. Flashy campaigns and promotional materials may draw initial interest, but Indian students and their families increasingly seek solid evidence of faculty expertise, relevant curricula, international collaborations, and job placement records. Moreover, many branch campuses operate from rented vertical buildings, missing the vibrant campus culture typical of established universities. True education institutions offer more than classes—they provide libraries, communal spaces, extracurricular opportunities, and a sense of community.

Moving Forward: Addressing the Challenges

1.     Meeting Local Needs: India’s goal should not just be to attract foreign universities, but to invite those that align with national goals and show commitment to long-term engagement.

2.     Strengthening Regulations and Academic Standards: Each foreign campus proposal should be rigorously assessed on academic merit, faculty quality, research orientation, responsiveness to local challenges, and its ability to complement India’s existing educational ecosystem. Simply being an international institution should not guarantee approval.

III.          Resetting the India-U.S. Partnership in a Time of Uncertainty

From Confidence to Caution

India-U.S. relations, once seen as steadily strengthening, are now facing a period of quiet discomfort. While not at risk of collapse, there has been a subtle erosion of mutual trust, driven by inconsistent policy signals, diplomatic missteps, and a drift toward outdated geopolitical thinking.

New Delhi was particularly unsettled by the Trump administration’s outreach to Pakistan—such as inviting its military chief to a state lunch—and by the President’s post-Operation Sindoor comments that equated India and Pakistan in his public statements.

Growing Tensions and Areas of Concern

• Economic Discontent: Despite celebrating a U.S.-China trade deal, President Trump reportedly discouraged Apple from expanding investment in India, hinting at potential trade backlash.
• Immigration Uncertainty: The tightening of the H-1B visa program—vital for India’s tech talent and innovation partnership with the U.S.—has become a major concern.
• Security Misalignment: The U.S. Defense Department’s description of Pakistan as an important partner in counterterrorism contradicts India’s view, given Pakistan’s links to cross-border militancy.

Underlying Causes of Strategic Drift

• Transactional Diplomacy: The Trump administration’s emphasis on short-term gains over long-term strategic alignment clashes with India’s more gradual and principle-based diplomatic style.
• Misjudging Pakistan’s Relevance: Parts of the U.S. security establishment continue to overvalue Pakistan’s role in regional stability, especially regarding Afghanistan, despite ongoing concerns about its reliability.
• Misreading India’s Strategic Autonomy: India’s deliberate foreign policy—rooted in autonomy and balance—is sometimes misinterpreted in Washington as indecisiveness. Critics like Ashley Tellis suggest India harbors unrealistic great-power ambitions, overlooking its thoughtful and measured approach to international engagement.

Revitalizing the Relationship: What Can Be Done

• India Should Stay the Course: Rather than reacting impulsively to irritants, India must stick to a steady, long-term engagement strategy. The core strengths of the partnership—defense cooperation, the Quad alliance, intelligence coordination, and shared Indo-Pacific interests—remain intact.
• Deeper Engagement in Washington: India needs to enhance its presence in U.S. policymaking circles by leveraging Congress, think tanks, and the Indian-American community to build stronger strategic narratives and advocacy.
• Domestic Reforms in India: India must focus on economic and regulatory reforms to bolster its investment climate and manufacturing capacity—not for foreign approval, but to advance its own global competitiveness. On trade, practical and smaller-scale agreements should be pursued with constructive optimism.
• Reframing the H-1B Debate: The visa issue should be seen not as a favor to India, but as a joint opportunity for innovation and talent-driven growth in both economies.
• America Must Support India’s Rise: Treating Indian talent or industrial capacity as a threat is counterproductive. To effectively counterbalance China in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. must help strengthen India’s regional capacities—economically and strategically.

Looking Ahead: A Test of Endurance, Not Celebration

Past breakthroughs—such as the 2005 civil nuclear agreement—show how powerful the India-U.S. relationship can be when built on mutual trust and bold decisions. As noted in Engaged Democracies, the real measure of the partnership lies not in its triumphs, but in how it holds up under pressure.