<p class="bodytext">On February 28, when West Asia was thrown into the middle of an illegal war that the United States and Israel launched on Iran, India expressed deep “concern”. In a statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, it struck an almost perfunctory note of diplomacy, drawing on an arrangement of words that carry weight during any military escalation: restraint, dialogue, civilian safety, territorial integrity, sovereignty. The statement did not mention Israel or the US. That India, in its first official response after the offensive, chose not to name the principal instigators of a war that directly assaults the idea it referenced in the statement – <span class="italic">sovereignty </span>– is telling. In the complex theatre of geopolitics, silence can be strategic; it can even mean principled autonomy. However, India’s response to the standoff is marked by selective distancing; when seen in the context of its deepening engagement with Israel and its outreach to the Gulf states after Tehran’s counter-strikes, this signals a policy drift steered by pragmatism.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Jordan, condemning the attacks, affirming “support for peace”, and thanking them for taking care of Indian expatriates. India, which has had close relations with Iran, is yet to react to the targeted killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Its ties with Israel are increasingly shaped by realpolitik. The two countries are also part of I2U2, the geoeconomic grouping formed along with the US and the UAE. India’s muted position on the war falls between celebratory endorsement by some of the American allies and condemnation by a few major powers, including China and Russia. Its compulsions to find a balance between Israel and the Arab states in a region critical to its energy and connectivity interests may pass the strategic test. But the larger question is: Can India let tangible gains override historical, ideological positions, pushing itself to a point of unconditional engagement with Israel?</p>.Instability in West Asia tests India’s strategic restraint.<p class="bodytext">Hints to the answer did emerge during Prime Minister Modi’s late-February visit to Tel Aviv. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declared a criminal by the International Court of Justice, had points to gain from Modi’s presence. In his address to the Knesset, Modi spoke about the “pain” and “grief” India shared with Israel over the lives lost in Hamas’ terror attack on October 7, 2023. He did not mention the more than 72,000 killed in Israel’s strikes on Gaza. The silence also complemented India’s proclamation of firm support, “...in this moment, and beyond”, at a time when Israel was building up for a unilateral war on Iran.</p>
<p class="bodytext">On February 28, when West Asia was thrown into the middle of an illegal war that the United States and Israel launched on Iran, India expressed deep “concern”. In a statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, it struck an almost perfunctory note of diplomacy, drawing on an arrangement of words that carry weight during any military escalation: restraint, dialogue, civilian safety, territorial integrity, sovereignty. The statement did not mention Israel or the US. That India, in its first official response after the offensive, chose not to name the principal instigators of a war that directly assaults the idea it referenced in the statement – <span class="italic">sovereignty </span>– is telling. In the complex theatre of geopolitics, silence can be strategic; it can even mean principled autonomy. However, India’s response to the standoff is marked by selective distancing; when seen in the context of its deepening engagement with Israel and its outreach to the Gulf states after Tehran’s counter-strikes, this signals a policy drift steered by pragmatism.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Jordan, condemning the attacks, affirming “support for peace”, and thanking them for taking care of Indian expatriates. India, which has had close relations with Iran, is yet to react to the targeted killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Its ties with Israel are increasingly shaped by realpolitik. The two countries are also part of I2U2, the geoeconomic grouping formed along with the US and the UAE. India’s muted position on the war falls between celebratory endorsement by some of the American allies and condemnation by a few major powers, including China and Russia. Its compulsions to find a balance between Israel and the Arab states in a region critical to its energy and connectivity interests may pass the strategic test. But the larger question is: Can India let tangible gains override historical, ideological positions, pushing itself to a point of unconditional engagement with Israel?</p>.Instability in West Asia tests India’s strategic restraint.<p class="bodytext">Hints to the answer did emerge during Prime Minister Modi’s late-February visit to Tel Aviv. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, declared a criminal by the International Court of Justice, had points to gain from Modi’s presence. In his address to the Knesset, Modi spoke about the “pain” and “grief” India shared with Israel over the lives lost in Hamas’ terror attack on October 7, 2023. He did not mention the more than 72,000 killed in Israel’s strikes on Gaza. The silence also complemented India’s proclamation of firm support, “...in this moment, and beyond”, at a time when Israel was building up for a unilateral war on Iran.</p>
