Strategic misfire or balancing?
India’s cautious and somewhat lacklustre foreign policy was on display again as the long-festering Israel-Iran conflict recently evolved from proxy warfare to direct military confrontation, creating ripple effects that extended far beyond regional boundaries. The conflict presented India with a complex diplomatic challenge that illustrates the difficulties of maintaining strategic autonomy in a multipolar world. Yet India chose to take this path.
India has cultivated relationships with both Iran and Israel, creating a balancing act between competing strategic interests. The war posed the risk of India falling between two stools. In fact, a sustained war spilling into the region could have put at risk the nine million-strong Indian diaspora and their remittances. Luckily for India, thanks to American intervention, it was over in 12 days.
Diplomats feel that, if such a situation were to arise again, India will have to be more proactive. “Given our strategic links with the US, Iran and Israel, we will have to walk more than one tightrope in a demonstration of strategic autonomy,” says Navtej Sarna, former ambassador to the US and Israel. While our substantial interests demand that we encourage antagonists to take the path of dialogue and diplomacy, pursuing strategic autonomy can lead to a country or bloc becoming isolated from key international partnerships and institutions, potentially diminishing its influence on global affairs. This isolation can make it more vulnerable to external pressures and limit its access to resources and markets
Indeed, in dealing with developments in the region, India will have simultaneously tailor its strategy to protect its status as a fast-growing economy. Intensifying geopolitical tensions, apart from growing trade shocks, are weighing on the global economy like never before. The present deceleration in global growth will act as a drag on domestic output. It is estimated that a 100 basis points (bps) slowdown in global growth can (with other conditions remaining the same), pull down India’s growth by 30 bps.
Though India is doing better than most economies, it’s a mixed trend. According to ICRA, eight key indicators have, of late, seen a deceleration. These include electricity generation, two-wheeler production, port cargo traffic and domestic airline passenger traffic. The RBI report notes that there are signs of moderation in urban demand. The finance ministry’s report also acknowledges “signs of softening in areas like construction inputs and vehicle sales”. Exports are another area of concern.
Far-reaching implications
The war still could have far-reaching implications for the regional order – and India will have to cope with that. Iran, though badly bruised, has reasserted itself as a counter-balance to Israel in an otherwise unipolar West Asia. Tehran is likely to rebuild its arsenal, both conventional and possibly nuclear, bolster relationships with Russia and China and reset ties in the region. On the other side, Israel’s over-reliance on the US was again laid bare when faced with major conventional challenges. When it launched the war, it knew that it would not be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own. The US, which was participating in the defence of Israel by intercepting Iranian projectiles, joined in, giving Tel Aviv an exit strategy. But the US, which has burnt its fingers in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, did not want to get entangled in another endless war.
This left Benjamin Netanyahu, undoubtedly the architect of the war, with no other option but to accept a ceasefire with the regime he wanted to overthrow. The Iranian nuclear programme has been set back by only a few months. In effect, the war failed to deliver its objective and has brought the situation full circle: the urgent need for a diplomatic solution.
For diplomacy to succeed now, the US must engage in serious talks with credible promises of economic benefits for Iran in return for accepting long-term, verifiable limits on its nuclear programme. Second, Washington must rein in Israel. As long as its closest ally continues to bomb its enemies with impunity, order and stability will remain out of reach for West Asia.
We cannot afford to be complacent about events which impact us. The situation in West Asia will evolve fast in the coming months. Our approach also needs to evolve. We cannot simply cling on to the Ministry of External Affairs’ formulation issued after the war broke out, expressing deep concern at the developments between Iran and Israel. “India urges both sides to avoid any escalatory steps,” it added. “Existing channels of dialogue and diplomacy should be utilised to work towards a de-escalation of the situation and resolving underlying issues. India enjoys close and friendly relations with both countries and stands ready to extend all possible support".
Strategic autonomy pursued through calculated and minimalist responses will be useful in the long run. Some experts say that such a policy served its purpose as the conflict between Israel and Iran was short. “If it had dragged on, every move of India would have been analysed and assessed and its impartiality tested, which would have been a test case for India's diplomacy,” says Shanthie Mariet D'Souza, founder, Mantraya Institute for Strategic Studies.
Brahma Chellaney, a strategic affairs expert, argues that, while the precision strikes under ‘Operation Rising Lion’ and ‘Operation Midnight Hammer’ in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan may have battered Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, whatever tactical gains were made, they could prove disastrous strategically. Iran is now more convinced than ever that nuclear weapons are the only way to deter future aggression and ensure the regime’s survival. Iran still has a cache of 60 per cent enriched uranium and the military setbacks have delayed its programme only by a few months.
According to Chellaney, such actions send a dangerous message that only nuclear-armed states are truly safe. He argues this hypocrisy has deep roots, pointing to the US’s past tolerance of Pakistan’s covert nuclear programme. Now, Chellaney contends, Iran may follow the path of secrecy and nuclear breakout, just as Iraq did after Israel’s 1981 Osirak strike. Military attacks thus may ultimately trigger the very nuclear crisis they aim to prevent.
India’s strategic ‘silence’
Others disagree. “India's strategic ‘silence’ on the Israel-Iran conflict, mirrored by its decisive refusal to endorse the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) statement denouncing Israel's attacks on Iran, reflects a ‘calculated and nuanced approach’, rooted in its national interests and geopolitical balancing,” says P.R. Kumaraswamy, professor, Middle Eastern Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. The SCO is a 10-member bloc created by Russia and China to counter the western-led order. India is also an SCO member, despite its regional rivalry with China. Responding to the escalation between Israel and Iran, the SCO expressed ‘serious concern’ and strongly condemned the Israeli military strikes.
This approach, akin to its neutrality shown by India during the Ukraine-Russia war, perhaps recognised the sentiments in several Arab capitals as they are caught between Israeli actions and an aggressive Iran and its militant proxies like the Houthis and Hezbollah as their neighbour.
Indeed, for those studying and dealing with contemporary geopolitics, the short but intense conflict offered crucial insights into modern international relations; it demonstrated how regional disputes can have far-reaching global implications. Also, how in a Trumpian world, where nothing is certain, situations can almost spiral out of control – and then be brought to control.
India’s nuclear policy
The 12-day war in West Asia brought out an uncomfortable aspect of India’s evolving foreign policy. Our nuclear policy is rooted in a commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable nuclear disarmament, while also maintaining a credible minimum deterrence. India did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), viewing it as discriminatory because it allows existing nuclear weapon states to retain their arsenals, while restricting others. India advocates for a global approach to disarmament, rather than selective non-proliferation.
Till it exploded a nuclear device in 1974 and later declared itself a nuclear weapons state in 1998, India considered itself a victim of nuclear discrimination, facing a slew of sanctions – something which Iran is faced with today.
Some western observers believe that given its growing economic clout and civilisational beliefs, India need to be more active in pursuing its interests rather than still follow a policy of equivalence, or the Nehruvian non-alignment, between competing nations (despite the odd Nehru-bashing for the galleries). Bruno Macaes, a member of the European Council on Foreign Relations, feels India needs to develop a vision on what kind of principles and priorities it has and then apply those principles to ongoing crises.
“I consider India a civilisation state but a civilisation state needs to offer an organising theory of world order,” says Macaes. “How can it be in India’s interest for Iran to be destroyed or for a new regime aligned with China and Pakistan to take root there? And yet we heard very little from Delhi in opposition to the wild adventures that were openly being discussed in Israel and Washington.”
“Similarly, on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, India, a country without territorial ambitions of its own, should be more critical of territorial invasions,” adds Macaes. “I would have liked a stronger position and a stronger role against the return of the old European imperialism, as represented by Russian president Putin”.
The 12-day war had serious ramifications for India. The immediate concern centred on energy security – a critical component of international stability. The Strait of Hormuz, through which about 40 per cent of global petroleum liquids transit, represents a crucial chokepoint in international trade. Any disruption to this waterway can trigger significant increases in global oil prices and broader economic instability.
India imports a significant portion of its crude oil requirements through the Strait of Hormuz route. Any disruption could lead to supply shortages and increased energy costs, directly impacting India's economic growth and inflation management. India's crude oil and half of its LNG imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran had threatened to close. This narrow waterway, only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, is thus indispensable to India, which depends on imports for over 80 per cent of its energy needs.
Impact on Indian exports
Escalating tensions between Iran and Israel, apart from impacting Indian exports to these two countries, also had wider implications for India's trade with West Asian countries, including Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Indian trader community is already reeling under the impact of the Israel-Hamas conflict and involvement of Yemen-backed Houthis' attack on shipping vessels in the Red Sea. Due to that, shipping lines from India were taking consignments from the Cape of Good Hope, encircling the African continent. Payment channels already strained by US sanctions may face further blockages, while heightened shipping risks in the Gulf could drive up insurance costs and delay shipments.
India's connectivity projects are also at risk. The Chabhar Port in Iran and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) represent crucial infrastructure investments designed to provide alternative trade routes bypassing Pakistan. The conflict threatened these strategic initiatives that are central to India's economic diplomacy and regional connectivity goals. Importantly, Iran acts as India's gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia.
The Chabhar Port project on the Gulf of Oman, developed jointly by India and Iran, is key to this strategy, providing India with direct access to this region while bypassing Pakistan. Last year, India signed a 10-year contract with Iran for its operation. Without political stability, our investment in Chabahar port is vulnerable, and visions like the I2U2 and the India-Middle East-Europe corridor (IMEC) will have to be approached with caution.
The spill-over effects extend to maritime security in the Red Sea, where Iranian-backed Houthis have targeted commercial shipping. With about 12 per cent of global trade passing through this route via the Suez Canal, these disruptions affect global supply chains and trade costs.
Arms race
The nuclear dimension added another layer of global concern. The prospect of nuclear proliferation in West Asia could trigger a regional arms race and fundamentally alter the balance of power in this strategically vital region. This scenario has implications for global non-proliferation efforts and international security architecture.
The presence of a substantial Indian diaspora in the region adds another dimension to India's concerns. The safety and potential evacuation of Indian nationals became a consular priority during periods of heightened conflict.
India's response has reflected its commitment to principled diplomacy – abstaining from partisan UN resolutions, while consistently advocating for de-escalation and dialogue. This approach demonstrates how middle powers navigate complex multi-alignment strategies in contemporary international relations.
The Iran-Israel war represented more than a bilateral dispute – it exemplifies the complex interplay between historical grievances, ideological differences, security dilemmas, and great power competition that characterise contemporary international relations. The shift from proxy warfare to direct military confrontation illustrates how regional conflicts can rapidly escalate and acquire global dimensions.
The conflict offered valuable insights into nuclear proliferation, alliance systems, economic inter-dependence and the challenges facing international institutions in managing conflicts. Has India learnt any lessons from it? Only time will tell.
For our dark-suited babus on the foreign office, understanding these dynamics is essential for chalking out an evolving doctrine to deal with local conflicts that can reshape global power structures and influence international institutions. The Iran-Israel conflict thus serves as a crucial case study in contemporary strategic studies and international relations theory. But it is just one piece of the complex geopolitical puzzle that our foreign policy mandarins need to master.