Terror in Iran: On the blasts in Iran’s Kerman and the impact
Iran should not walk into the web of provocations set by its rivals
January 5, 2024
The twin blasts in the southeastern Iranian city of Kerman at a memorial for Qassem Soleimani, the Quds Force commander whom the U.S. assassinated in Baghdad in January 2020, expose the security vulnerabilities of the Iranian regime at a time when conflicts are spreading in West Asia. At least 84 were killed in the worst terror attack in the Islamic Republic’s history. Soleimani, the brain behind the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC) overseas operations, had enjoyed cult status when alive, and became a symbol of an embattled regime’s resilience over the past four years. While Iran’s leaders called it a terrorist attack but stopped short of blaming anyone, mid-rung officials said the responsibility for the attack “lies with the U.S. and the Zionist entity”. However, on Thursday, the Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility. For the IS, Soleimani was a sworn enemy as he had mobilised Shia militias to fight the IS in Syria and Iraq. These groups played a role in the urban battles in Iraq during 2018-19 that saw the destruction of the physical structures of the IS Caliphate. The group lost its proto state but survived as a terrorist entity in parts of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
For Iran, the attack has come at a precarious moment when tensions are rising in West Asia. The Kerman memorial event was bombed a day after a senior Hamas leader was killed in Beirut in a drone strike, for which Lebanese officials have blamed Israel. Hezbollah, which has been engaging Israeli troops in a limited way since October 7, has vowed retaliation. On December 25, an Israeli strike in Syria killed Seyyed Razi Mousavi, a senior IRGC adviser. Israel, whose ongoing attack on Gaza has already killed at least 22,000 people, seems ready to take more risks even at the cost of regional escalation, while in the Red Sea, Iran-backed Houthi rebels of Yemen have been repeatedly attacking commercial vessels since late November. Pro-Iran Shia militias have targeted U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria since October 7, and on Thursday, a U.S. strike in Iraq killed a Shia militia commander. The Israel-Hamas war is no longer about just Israel and Hamas. It has put the whole region in a ring of fire. As chaos spreads the IS seems to have found an opportunity to strike its old enemy which is under pressure. The attack should serve as a warning to Iran and its rivals. If chaos and instability spread it would be a boon for jihadists. This calls for a de-escalation of the current regional crisis. Iran, on the other side, should not walk into the web of provocations set by its rivals. It should show restraint and focus on strengthening internal security.

Shielding SEBI: On Supreme Court’s ruling and SEBI probe
SC should have pushed it to do more while not reviewing policy actions
January 5, 2024
The Supreme Court of India’s ruling on a batch of petitions, filed in the wake of a U.S.-based short seller’s allegations of malfeasance including stock price manipulation at the Adani group of companies, has squarely tossed the ball back to the markets regulator’s court. The Court has opted to subordinate petitioners’ entreaties to protect larger public interest to its chariness to substitute “its own wisdom over the regulatory policies” of the Securities and Exchange Board of India. In its 46-page order, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud is emphatic in observing that “SEBI has prime facie conducted a comprehensive investigation” that “inspires confidence”, and that “the facts of this case do not warrant a transfer of investigation from SEBI” given that “prima facie no deliberate inaction or inadequacy” was found in the regulator’s conduct of its probe. Strikingly, the Bench has completely skirted the fundamental questions that the Court-appointed Expert Committee in its May 2023 report had opted to leave as a ‘matter between SEBI and the Court’ — the determination of possible violations pertaining to minimum public shareholding and related party transactions. The Bench has instead seized upon prayers urging the Court to direct SEBI to revoke its amendments to the Foreign Portfolio Investors Regulations and Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements — amendments that were at the heart of petitioners’ submissions of regulatory failure — and roundly denied them on grounds that there was neither “any illegality”, nor were the norms “capricious, arbitrary or violative of the Constitution”.
The ruling has also done little to assuage investors’ concerns about SEBI’s approach to getting to the bottom of the allegations raised by Hindenburg Research in its January 2023 report. Without elaboration on any of the regulator’s findings, the Court has blandly observed that “SEBI has completed 22 out of the 24 investigations into the Adani group” and that completion of the remaining two “are pending due to inputs being awaited from foreign regulators”. The Bench has directed SEBI to complete these “expeditiously”. While the Court’s reluctance to review the policy actions of a ‘specialised regulator’ is understandable, the decision to leave the crucial question of SEBI’s perceived tardiness in investigating allegations of corporate malfeasance and market manipulation by a large conglomerate back to the remit of the very same watchdog hints at a degree of judicial abstinence that may only undermine the larger public good. The Court is surely aware of past instances where it has found SEBI wanting in alacrity of enforcement, a facet flagged by the experts’ panel appointed in this case as well. After all, ‘justice must not only be done, but it must also be seen to be done’.