India’s foreign policy tightrope in West Asia

Cautious response reflects strategic restraint but raises questions on role in conflict resolution

The United States and Israel’s war on Iran had been in the making for almost a year. But when conflict erupted, it broke every rule in the book — and the global community, including India, responded with guarded restraint.

Reactions were shaped not by traditional norms but by asymmetries of power, fragmentation in regional and global affairs, the breakdown of a rules-based order, and the disruption of customary channels of communication.

Concerns mounted that the ideological gap and strategic mistrust between the US-Israel bloc and Iran could destabilise geopolitics and the global economy. Oman’s mediation on the nuclear issue and the Gulf states’ warnings to the US about likely retaliation failed to prevent the war. As costs escalated, an off-ramp brokered by Türkiye, Egypt, and Pakistan produced a temporary ceasefire.

The guarded, nuanced, and muted response carried signals of frustration with rogue behaviour by the belligerents. Gulf states, hit by Iran’s retaliation, took the matter to the UNSC but refused to join the US war effort — privately lamenting that the US bases failed to provide protection. Europe sought de-escalation, did not join the coalition, and grew increasingly critical of Israeli leadership and legal conduct. Russia and China condemned the attacks on Iran, extended material and intelligence support, yet allowed passage of UNSC resolution.

India’s response was based on an assessment of the war and its effect on its key interests. For India, relations with the US, Israel, Iran, and the Gulf region are all critical, and the West Asia region is crucial and complicated.

New Delhi’s proposals for de-escalation and diplomatic negotiations are consistent with its policy. However, India has refrained from engaging directly in mediation. This approach certainly needs review as others look towards India for support, and India can add value to the table. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar are maintaining contact with counterparts and strategic partners. Similarly, communication across party lines within India is necessary to build a unified approach during crisis situations.

India joined UNSC Resolution 2817 as a co-sponsor, condemning Iranian retaliation against Gulf States. Standing with the Arab states supported their concerns, helped the Indian community in the region, and facilitated the evacuation flights. India also supported Iran and extended humanitarian medical assistance during the war.

BRICS, under India’s chairship, held emergency consultations on the war, particularly since certain members were involved in the war. While it achieved a better understanding, consensus was difficult. Overall, BRICS provided hope for a negotiated settlement and argued against the expansion of the war.

The initial public posture

India’s initial public posture on Iran’s territorial sovereignty was described as strategic silence as New Delhi did not formally condemn the attacks, and many interpreted this as a tilt toward Israel. It prompted discussion on how far emerging powers could openly discuss legal and principled positions, even with close partners, without resorting to megaphone diplomacy. The delay in offering condolences after the assassination of Khamenei could have been avoided.

India’s energy security received a jolt as it was forced to diversify energy imports, focus on strategic reserves, review renewable energy policy, and provide fiscal support to manage the adverse fallout of the conflict on the domestic economy. Emergency negotiations with Tehran to facilitate the movement of Indian ships through the Strait of Hormuz and deployment of naval escorts achieved ad hoc solutions. India may need to improve its capacity and capability for crisis management and conflict resolution in its immediate neighbourhood to gain in stature as a credible emerging power that stays the course with strategic autonomy, national interest, and global responsibility.

The ongoing crisis confirmed the dangerous trend of belligerent States resorting to force rather than diplomacy, often at huge cost to the regional and global economy. The normalisation of such trends could hasten the decline of the old rules-based order even before new mechanisms and institutions can mature to address challenges that impact the global community.

To maintain strategic stability and build an inclusive world, emerging powers such as India must be seized of such developments and trends, and engage actively to shape the dynamics of the interface between geopolitics and geoeconomics as we move towards reformed global governance.

(The writer is a former diplomat, currently professor at Jindal Global University)