Editorial

In a pointed escalation at the BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has openly accused the United Arab Emirates of direct involvement in recent military attacks against Iran. Speaking via his Telegram channel, Araghchi claimed the UAE allowed its territory to be used for launching operations and failed even to condemn the aggression. He urged Abu Dhabi to reconsider its strategic partnership with Israel, warning that neither U.S. bases nor the Abraham Accords framework would guarantee its security.

This confrontation, unfolding on the sidelines of a forum meant to project multipolar solidarity, lays bare the deep fault lines in West Asian geopolitics. Iran’s charges come amid heightened regional tensions following reported Israeli and U.S.-linked strikes on Iranian targets. Tehran portrays the UAE as an active participant rather than a bystander, alleging logistical support and intelligence collaboration. Whether substantiated by independent evidence or part of a broader narrative to isolate Gulf neighbors, the accusation signals Tehran’s willingness to confront its rivals publicly, even within BRICS, where unity is ostensibly prized.

The UAE, a key architect of the Abraham Accords, has pursued pragmatic normalization with Israel driven by shared concerns over Iranian influence, ballistic missile programs, and proxy networks across Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. For Abu Dhabi, economic diversification, technological partnerships, and security against Houthi threats outweigh ideological solidarity with Tehran. Iran’s economy groans under sanctions, while Gulf states have built resilient global ties. Suggesting the UAE abandon these for alignment with a regime facing isolation risks sounding more like bluster than viable diplomacy.

Yet Iran’s frustrations are not baseless in the broader context. Decades of mistrust persist: the UAE’s involvement in the Yemen conflict, perceived U.S. alignment, and hosting of American assets fuel Tehran’s siege mentality. The Strait of Hormuz remains a chokepoint where miscalculation could ignite wider conflict, threatening global energy markets. BRICS, expanding with Iran’s recent membership, was envisioned as a counterweight to Western dominance, yet internal rivalries—evident in this public spat—undermine its cohesion. India, as host, must navigate delicate balances given its ties to both Iran (energy, Chabahar) and the Gulf (remittances, investments).

This episode highlights a core dilemma: security in the Gulf cannot rest solely on external alliances or military posturing. Sustainable peace demands de-escalation, confidence-building measures, and regional dialogue forums that include all stakeholders. Proxy wars and accusations only perpetuate cycles of retaliation. For the UAE, Araghchi’s remarks underscore the limits of hedging; for Iran, they reveal the costs of confrontation.

As global powers recalibrate, the region needs statesmanship over saber-rattling. True multipolarity should foster stability, not export internal divisions. Without restraint, today’s rhetorical clashes risk becoming tomorrow’s flashpoints, with ordinary citizens bearing the heaviest price.

The announcement by the Indian National Congress naming V. D. Satheesan as the Chief Ministerial face for Kerala marks more than an electoral declaration; it reflects a strategic attempt by the Congress to reposition itself in a politically sophisticated State where leadership credibility matters as much as ideology.

The decision, announced at the AICC briefing by senior leaders Ajay Maken, Mukul Wasnik, and Deepa Dasmunshi, signals that the party is preparing for a direct and personality-driven contest against the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Democratic Front.

In Kerala politics, where voters are politically alert and deeply engaged with governance issues, projecting a CM candidate early is both bold and risky. Yet, in Satheesan, the Congress appears to have chosen a leader who combines articulate opposition politics with a relatively clean and modern public image. Over recent years, he has emerged as one of the sharpest critics of the State government, especially on issues of corruption, administrative accountability, and alleged political violence.

The Congress also seems to understand an important political reality: Kerala’s electorate increasingly prefers clarity over ambiguity. Unlike earlier elections where leadership questions were left unresolved until after results, today’s voters seek accountability before casting their vote. By naming Satheesan in advance, the party has attempted to project confidence and unity.

However, symbolism alone will not guarantee electoral success. The Congress in Kerala continues to grapple with factional undercurrents that have historically weakened its organizational strength. The challenge before Satheesan will not merely be to attack the ruling front, but to unify competing interests within his own party and alliance structure.

Moreover, Kerala’s political landscape remains unique. The State has traditionally alternated between the Congress-led United Democratic Front and the Left Democratic Front. Yet, the ideological space is becoming more competitive with national narratives increasingly influencing regional politics. Questions of secularism, federalism, minority confidence, unemployment, and economic management are expected to dominate the campaign.

Satheesan’s elevation also reflects a generational transition within the Congress. The party appears to be gradually moving away from dependence on legacy politics toward leaders who are more aggressive, media-savvy, and publicly accessible. Whether this transition can revive the Congress nationally remains uncertain, but Kerala may become an important testing ground.

Ultimately, the Congress has made a decisive political gamble. By placing V. D. Satheesan at the center of its Kerala campaign, it has turned the next Assembly election into a referendum not only on governance, but also on whether the Congress can reinvent itself as a credible alternative in contemporary Indian politics.

• SAS Kirmani