The joint attack by Israel and America on Iran has been devastating. Like most wars, it is inhuman to the core. The pretext for the war has been that the Ayatollah Khamenei regime has been very brutal towards women's rights and was preparing nuclear weapons. Iran, in turn, was willing to come to the negotiating table and concede some of the points under discussion.

In the middle of the talks, the Israel-America (I-A) axis decided to launch the war, and in its initial phase, inflicted severe damage on Iran. One instance was the killing of Khamenei along with some of his family members, and another was the bombing of a school in which 165 young girls lost their lives. Many civilians have also been targeted by the I-A axis. In addition, an Iranian naval ship that had arrived in India on invitation for naval exercises was torpedoed by a US submarine, killing a large number of sailors. Iran retaliated bravely and caused huge damage to the I-A axis.

During this period, India's role in these developments is a powerful eye-opener into its evolving foreign policy. India was non-aligned to begin with and had very amicable relations with Iran. Cultural and economic exchanges between the two countries were excellent. However, we now see that Indian Prime Minister Modi visited Israel just before the war. The purpose of the visit was unknown to the country. He received Israel's highest honour and pledged that India would stand by Israel through thick and thin.

The very next day, the I-A axis attacked Iran. Mr Modi did not tweet about the demise of Iran's supreme leader and issued a bland statement equating the aggressor and the aggrieved country. India's transition from neutrality to embracing the American-Israel axis became evident through the acts of commission and omission of the Indian Prime Minister.

Turning to the American story, we have been observing the US's role, particularly since the 1950s. Its role has largely been to interfere in other countries' affairs to pursue its political and economic goals. Earlier, "saving the world from Communism" served as its primary justification for unleashing wars, beginning with the Vietnam War. The French had colonised Vietnam, and when Ho Chi Minh's communist army overthrew them, a long and complicated political process led to the division of Vietnam along the 17th parallel into Communist North Vietnam and Capitalist South Vietnam.

America launched a horrific war against Vietnam, spending millions of dollars. The Americans used chemical weapons such as Napalm (jellied petrol) and Agent Orange (a powerful weed killer). These were used to clear jungle foliage that served as the natural hiding place for the Viet Cong (the army raised by the Vietnamese). While Napalm cleared much of the undergrowth, it also stuck to human bodies and caused horrific injuries. Agent Orange killed many innocent civilians; farms were destroyed, crops were lost, and animals perished.

The Vietnamese people largely supported Ho Chi Minh. Through guerrilla tactics, the Viet Cong eventually emerged victorious, and America, for once, had to face defeat. Its army, more than five lakh strong, retreated, morale crushed by defeat at the hands of a young nation. The Vietnam War clearly demonstrated that America would spare no effort in defeating those opposed to its interests, which it presented as defending the ideology of the "Free World."

This pattern became clearer over time as America attacked country after country on one pretext or another. The second major case was Iran. With its strategic location and vast oil reserves, Iran attracted the interest of Western powers, mainly the United States and the United Kingdom. Britain had a strong presence in Iran during the Second World War. After the war, it continued to control Iran's oil through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, exploiting the resource for its own interests.

This arrangement changed abruptly in 1951, when the Iranian parliament, led by Mosaddegh's nationalist, democratically elected government, voted to nationalise the country's oil industry. Britain began opposing the Mossadegh regime and attempted to foment opposition against him. With American support, a coup was staged in Iran, overthrowing the democratically elected government and installing Reza Shah Pahlavi, a stooge of America. Western control over Iranian oil remained secure.

The story of Salvador Allende's elimination and the overthrow of a democratic government in Chile is fairly similar. Allende, a Marxist and member of the Socialist Party, was sworn in as President of Chile on November 3, 1970. He decided to nationalise copper companies, many of which were controlled by American interests. According to a 1975 Senate report, the US spent $8 million on covert actions between 1970 and the 1973 coup. US officials also supported economic measures to squeeze Allende's government. In a CIA-backed coup, the military dictator Pinochet came to power. He ruled ruthlessly and wreaked havoc on Chile's democracy and its potential prosperity.

The harm inflicted on West Asia proved even more dangerous. After the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan, America supported madrasas in Pakistan and helped train the Mujahideen. From this milieu emerged the Taliban and Al Qaeda. America funded them to the extent of eight billion dollars and supplied them with seven thousand tons of armaments (Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim).

After 9/11, America found a pretext to attack Afghanistan, where about 60,000 people were killed. Seeking to dominate the region, it then invoked the claim of "weapons of mass destruction" to attack Iraq. Soldiers were told that Iraq's people were oppressed by Saddam Hussein and that the war was necessary. They were also told that Iraqis would see them as liberators and welcome them with bouquets and chocolates. The reality proved different. Iraq was dismantled, and the Islamic State emerged. Neither were weapons of mass destruction found, nor were American soldiers welcomed.

Colonialism and imperialism leave deep scars on victim countries and on the world as a whole. In India, the British policy of "divide and rule" strengthened communal forces, the consequences of which we continue to suffer today. The American media's coining and popularising of the phrase "Islamic terrorism" has contributed to the global demonisation of Muslims. Both colonialism and imperialism lie at the root of many of the world's foremost problems today. Hope lies in promoting peace by recognising the impact of neo-imperialism.