Enough: A war where everyone loses

The conflict’s costs are mounting. India should leverage its strategic neutrality for dialogue and de-escalation.

The West Asia conflict is no longer a distant war; it is a global destabiliser. What began as a strategic confrontation has drifted into something dangerous – an open-ended conflict – where civilian lives and critical infrastructure have become routine targets. There can be no winners in this war. It is a negative-sum game in which every participant, and the world at large, is losing. It is time to say, unequivocally: enough.

Unlike conventional conflicts, this war destroys value across economic, political, and human dimensions, leaving every actor worse off. The United States, already grappling with fiscal pressures, is committing billions to military deployments. Israel, despite its military superiority, faces sustained security threats and economic disruption. Iran, already in a deep economic crisis, is further weakened. The Gulf states confront rising insecurity and capital flight risks. And beyond the region, the global economy absorbs the resulting energy shockwaves.

The economic consequences are immediate and measurable. Energy markets, sensitive to geopolitical instability, have shown sustained upward price volatility, with even a $10-15 per barrel increase transmitting quickly into inflation, fiscal stress, and reduced household purchasing power across energy-importing economies. For India, which imports nearly 85% of its crude oil, such increases can widen the current account deficit by an estimated 0.3-0.4% of GDP.

The International Monetary Fund has repeatedly warned that geopolitical fragmentation is a structural driver of persistent inflation. We are thus confronted with the spectre of stagflation, a toxic combination of low growth and high inflation. Supply chains, already fragile after the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war, are under renewed strain. Even moderate disruptions to energy flows from the Gulf can shave off meaningful portions of global GDP growth. For economies like India, which have worked hard to stabilise macroeconomic fundamentals, such external shocks are profoundly destabilising.

Yet the economic costs, severe as they are, pale in comparison to the human costs. Wars of this nature do not remain confined to battlefields; they spill into cities, homes, and everyday life. Civilian casualties mount, infrastructure is destroyed, and entire communities are displaced. The long-term consequences – psychological trauma, disrupted education, and lost livelihoods – create generational scars. As the United Nations has repeatedly noted, civilians account for the overwhelming majority of casualties in modern conflicts.

Social cohesion within affected societies frays. Polarisation deepens, dissent is often curtailed in the name of national security, and democratic spaces shrink. Diaspora communities experience heightened tensions, sometimes spilling into social unrest far from the conflict zone.

Politically, the conflict entrenches hardline positions. Negotiation becomes politically costly; compromise is framed as weakness. Leaders on all sides risk becoming prisoners of their own rhetoric, narrowing the space for de-escalation.

This raises a fundamental question: if the costs are so evident, why does the conflict persist? The answer lies in a combination of strategic miscalculation, domestic political compulsions, and the absence of credible mediators who command trust across all parties. Traditional diplomatic channels are either exhausted or viewed with suspicion. What is needed is an intervention that is both credible and constructive: one that can reframe the conflict and break the cycle of escalation.

India’s voice is crucial

This is where India must step forward. India’s stakes are neither abstract nor distant. Nearly nine million Indians live and work in the Gulf region, and the country’s energy security is deeply tied to West Asia. Prolonged instability directly affects India’s inflation trajectory, fiscal stability, and growth prospects. Energy prices, trade flows, and the welfare of its diaspora are all intimately linked to the region’s stability. India is not merely an observer; it is a directly affected stakeholder.

At the same time, India’s diplomatic positioning is uniquely advantageous. It maintains strategic partnerships with the US, longstanding civilisational and diplomatic ties with Iran, and expanding economic and technological cooperation with Israel. It also enjoys deep engagement with the Gulf states, anchored in energy interdependence and labour mobility. Few countries possess this breadth of relationships; fewer still are perceived as relatively neutral and non-hegemonic.

India’s consistent emphasis on strategic autonomy, dialogue, and peaceful resolution lends credibility to any mediation effort it undertakes. Recent diplomatic engagements have demonstrated India’s ability to build consensus in a fragmented world. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has demonstrated the capacity to engage across geopolitical divides. His outreach has spanned Washington, Tehran, Tel Aviv, and the Gulf capitals, often balancing competing interests with pragmatic diplomacy. This positions him uniquely to initiate a dialogue that others cannot.

However, mediation is about framing. India must articulate the conflict not in terms of competing claims, but in terms of shared losses. The narrative must shift decisively from ‘who gains’ to ‘everyone loses.’ This reframing is essential to create political space for de-escalation. India can convene a structured dialogue – formal or backchannel – focused on three immediate priorities: cessation of hostilities, humanitarian access, and a roadmap for sustained negotiation. Critics may argue that India risks diplomatic overreach. Yet the greater risk lies in inaction. Proactive diplomacy is a strategic necessity. The moral argument is equally compelling. In an era increasingly defined by transactional geopolitics, there is an urgent need for voices that appeal to shared humanity. India, with its civilisational ethos rooted in dialogue, coexistence, and restraint, can offer that voice. It can remind the world that power must ultimately serve peace, not perpetuate conflict.

"Enough” is not merely an expression of fatigue; it is a call to responsibility. It is a recognition that the costs – economic, social, and human – are too great to bear. The war must stop. Hostilities must cease. Dialogue must begin. History will judge this moment not by the intensity of the war, but by the courage to end it.

The world does not need another spectator; it needs a credible mediator. India can, and must, step into that role. Enough must mean something.

(The writer is Director, School of Social Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.