Wartime diplomacy: Realism shapes India’s restraint

The war launched by the combined forces of the United States and Israel against Iran was not entirely unexpected, considering the expansive buildup and rhetoric that preceded the offensive. The initial stages of the conflict witnessed the elimination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and important members of his team. This was seen as part of the US-Israel combine’s stated objective of regime change. As the conflict extends, this goal appears to have diverged for the two principal aggressors.

US President Donald Trump has indicated that he does not favour parachuting in Reza Pahlavi, son of the deposed Shah, who fled Iran in 1979 following the Islamic Revolution. Trump appears to prefer a leader from the existing set of administrators in Iran. The condition for such a takeover could be that the Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, introduces democracy and considerably scales down the Republic’s nuclear programme.

Israel, on the other hand, is looking at the absolute elimination of Iran’s apex power structure. Tel Aviv is aggressively targeting oil reserves and other strategic installations in Iran, inflicting heavy economic costs. The relentless attacks aim to bring the disgruntled elements back on the streets to make it impossible for the present regime to remain in power. Iran has demonstrated resilience and launched a massive counter-offensive targeting oil reserves and US military bases in the Gulf region. The choke at the Strait of Hormuz has severely impacted global oil trade, further exposing the energy vulnerabilities of many countries, including India.

India has traditionally advocated for negotiated settlements on issues that cannot be resolved through conflict. It has consistently condemned the attacks on innocent civilians, who end up as collateral damage in any armed conflict. A case in point is its unequivocal condemnation of the 2022 killing of civilians in Bucha, Ukraine, following Russia’s invasion of the country. It also backed calls for an independent probe into the incident. India’s criticism of Russia’s actions signified New Delhi’s stand on civilians being drawn into the war; yet the measured statement did not place India-Russia relations under stress. While urging an immediate end to violence and a return to diplomacy, India maintains a neutral stance on the war in Ukraine and has abstained from the United Nations votes condemning Russia.

Amid an escalation in the West Asia war, India joined more than 130 countries at the UN Security Council (UNSC), where a pivotal resolution denounced Iran’s retaliatory strikes against the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and Jordan. The Bahrain-led resolution was adopted by the 15-member Council with 13 votes in favour; permanent members China and Russia abstained. It demanded the immediate cessation of Tehran’s strikes. By co-sponsoring such a resolution, the Narendra Modi government has avoided taking sides, while making a strategic statement signalling its concerns about the loss of innocent lives. This diplomatic stance avoids adventurism and bravado, but pushes credible engagement with all the stakeholders in the conflict.

When Narendra Modi undertook his second official visit to Israel in February, he was aware that it was happening at a crucial juncture, when West Asian geopolitics was undergoing a structural shift. It is no secret that India has a strong relationship with Israel as well as with Iran. In recent years, India has significantly increased its economic and strategic engagement with the Arab countries. It has also been a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause and has advocated a negotiated settlement on the issue. It was upon the Prime Minister to balance these diverse interests and alliances with caution and poise.

New Delhi will have to maintain its defence and economic partnership with Israel, continue its engagement with infrastructure projects such as the Chabahar Port in Iran, deepen its ties with the Arab countries, and ensure the safety of Indians working in the region. It should avoid becoming a party to the entrenched regional rivalries.

The conflict between moral grandstanding and pragmatic diplomacy has always been a point of debate in geopolitics and the practice of international relations. What matters the most in the conduct of foreign policy in the present times, particularly in a conflict situation, is the need to secure national interest, which takes precedence over civilisational underpinnings of ethics and morality. The world order is in a state of flux, witnessing the practical unfolding of the theoretical framework of neo-realism. These are troubling times increasingly defined by strong power contestation.

India has taken the best road available in the situation. It has pursued statecraft anchored in a calculated effort to insulate national security and economic interests from a potentially extended conflict with uncertain outcomes.

The writer reads between the lines on big national and international developments from his vantage point in the BJP and the RSS.

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