A balancing act? Global power rivalry over Iran challenges India’s foreign policy

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat* 

A stable Iran is clearly in India’s interest. While US President Donald Trump has so far avoided a direct attack, the situation remains deeply uncertain. The central problem is that few governments take Trump’s words at face value. His actions have revealed a clear pattern: Washington targets adversaries even while pretending to negotiate with them. For the United States, negotiations are often framed as surrender to American hegemony. 

Any country unwilling to accept that framework is treated as expendable. When direct military intervention is difficult, Washington resorts to manufacturing unrest in the name of promoting “democracy.” Yet how can democracy be “restored” by parachuting in exiled figures living in the US as alternative leadership? Iranians, like any other people, have an unquestionable right to choose their own leaders and way of life.

Not long ago Trump announced that he would avoid foreign entanglements and focus on “Making America Great Again.” That pledge has clearly fallen by the wayside. After Venezuela, Iran appears to be next in line, though the ground realities are far more complicated. 

First, Iran is a powerful, historic civilisation with deep institutional resilience. Military resistance is likely to be intense. Second, Iran has developed long-range missile capabilities and other strategic options that Washington cannot ignore. Third, unlike Venezuela—which is in America’s backyard—Iran is embedded in a region where Russia, China and India maintain significant interests, alongside several Middle Eastern states hosting US military bases. A conflict in West Asia would devastate the global economy, although some may believe war serves their economic agendas.

India must remain wary of “experts” shaping the Iran narrative through western corporate media, much of which aligns with the military-industrial establishment. When economic strangulation falls short, the focus shifts to symbolic issues such as hijab politics and women’s rights. When that fails, threats of military action follow. Predictably, Iranian society is painted as brutal, undemocratic and on the verge of collapse—often with AI-generated content to build public consent for intervention.

Reports now suggest Trump has privately conveyed that the US does not intend to attack Iran, even as Washington brings the matter to the UN. Yet troop relocations and withdrawals from US bases nearby imply a different story. If war is not imminent, the preparations clearly continue.

US foreign policy today largely revolves around isolating Russia from the rest of the world. This is a puzzling form of diplomacy: engaging adversaries on one hand while pressuring allies to sever ties with them on the other. Europe was pushed to abandon affordable Russian oil and gas in favour of more expensive imports from the US. Venezuela’s resources were similarly targeted. Iran now finds itself in a similar position—partly due to its conflict with Israel, but also because of its alignment with Russia and China. India maintains close ties with Iran and Israel, just as it balances relations with Russia, Europe and the United States. Pursuing national interests requires diplomacy, but true strategic partnerships demand respect and consistency.

There are reports that Russia brokered a temporary understanding between Iran and Israel. Others suggest the US is buying time to reposition its troops before escalating. What is beyond doubt is that Iran is not a state that can be bullied into submission. It is a proud civilisation with independent institutions and strategic depth. Unlike several regional “economic powers” that ultimately fall in line with Washington’s diktats, Iran has charted its own foreign policy course. Its internal challenges are real, but no worse than those of many other nations.

The world today requires cooperation, not confrontation. The post-colonial order that emerged after World War II has settled into a complex balance, and efforts to forcibly reorder it are bound to face resistance. Dialogue is essential. The UN system must be strengthened, not bypassed. Europe must overcome its dependence on US strategic priorities and stop treating Russia as an adversarial outsider. The same western states that empowered China in the 1980s to contain Russia now view Beijing as a threat, while Russia has recovered from the turbulence of the 1990s. Russia under President Putin has regained geopolitical weight, and this global balancing is necessary. The world needs America—but it also needs autonomous Europe, resurgent Russia, a confident China, and independent nations like India.

In the 21st century, peace must come through negotiation, not through bombing nations that resist Western preferences. War waged in the name of “human rights” or “democracy” ultimately destroys both. Rights and freedoms should never be weaponised to justify chaos, violence or regime change.

One hopes reason prevails and the world avoids another disastrous conflict—one that could spiral toward nuclear confrontation. The only way forward is de-escalation, dialogue and respect for sovereignty.

---

*Human rights defender