The recent escalation against Iran, initiated under US President Donald Trump, has elicited two distinct responses from New Delhi. The Ministry of External Affairs issued a calibrated official statement expressing “deep concern” and urging dialogue, restraint, and respect for sovereignty. Concurrently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a phone call to the leadership of the United Arab Emirates, strongly condemning attacks on Emirati soil and expressing solidarity.
Between these two responses lies a notable silence—one that underscores the mounting strain on India’s longstanding effort to balance its relationships with Washington, Tehran, and Tel Aviv.
The Prime Minister’s outreach to the UAE followed Iranian retaliatory strikes targeting the Emirates, themselves a response to combined Israeli-US attacks on Iranian territory. Reports from those strikes indicated the deaths of hundreds of civilians, along with senior officials and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran also launched missiles toward Qatar and Bahrain, both hosts to US military bases. Yet India has refrained from explicitly condemning the violation of Iran’s sovereignty, instead urging “all sides” to pursue diplomacy.
What remains unaddressed is the abrupt breakdown of two months of US-Iran negotiations, reportedly at a moment when a deal was within reach. Just hours before the strikes, Omani mediators had signaled that an agreement was imminent, with Iran committing never to stockpile bomb-grade material. New Delhi’s silence on this breakdown reflects a familiar pattern: its relationship with Tehran has long been shaped, and often constrained, by its ties with Washington.
Past Dilemma
Criticism of the current government has been swift. Opposition leaders have accused the Modi administration of betraying Iran. Yet history suggests this dilemma predates the present regime. In September 2005, under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, India voted in favor of a US-backed European-sponsored resolution against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency. The resolution declared Iran non-compliant with its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty safeguards and hinted at referral to the UN Security Council.
The vote marked a sharp departure from India’s traditional non-aligned posture. Tehran had lobbied intensely, appealing to shared developing-world solidarity and leadership within the Non-Aligned Movement. Simultaneously, Washington exerted pressure. Days before the vote, US Congressman Tom Lantos warned that India’s newly announced civil nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States carried expectations of reciprocity—particularly regarding US policy toward Iran. India voted with 22 other countries in favor, while twelve, including China and Russia, abstained. Tehran viewed the vote as a betrayal.
That decision appeared even more consequential in light of events a decade earlier. In 1994, India faced potential censure at the UN Commission on Human Rights over allegations of violations in Kashmir. Pakistan had mobilized support within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation for a resolution. Then external affairs minister Dinesh Singh traveled urgently to Tehran and secured assurances from Iranian leaders, including President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, that Iran would intervene. Tehran did more than expected, effectively blocking the OIC move and sparing India a potentially damaging international setback. For many in Iran, this episode magnified the sense of betrayal in 2005.
The fallout from that vote narrowed political trust, even as trade continued. A key casualty was the development of Iran’s Chabahar Port, intended to give India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia while bypassing Pakistan. The project regained momentum after Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with world powers, and Prime Minister Modi visited Tehran in 2016. But when the Trump administration withdrew from the JCPOA and reimposed sanctions, Chabahar slowed once more. India halted purchases of Iranian oil under US pressure. Although New Delhi insists it remains committed to a 10-year Chabahar contract signed in 2024, Tehran has publicly expressed disappointment over the absence of allocations in India’s 2026 budget.
Today’s tensions are layered atop shifting regional alignments. The perceived warmth between Prime Minister Modi and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has added strain to India-Iran ties. Iran has not hesitated to criticize India publicly.
In 2020, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the Delhi riots and criticized the revocation of Kashmir’s special status. In 2024, he included India among countries allegedly persecuting Muslims. Differences over Israel’s war in Gaza have also surfaced. When External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar visited Tehran in January 2024, Iran pressed India to help end bombings and lift blockades, while India reiterated its call for dialogue and a two-state solution.
Calibrated Silence
India frames its calibrated silence as an exercise in strategic autonomy. Yet to many observers, it increasingly resembles strategic dependence—particularly on Washington. For over two decades, India’s Iran policy has been shaped by US pressure, from the IAEA vote to sanctions compliance. What distinguishes the current moment is the visibility of alignment with Israel, growing domestic scrutiny over minority rights, and the sheer scale of conflict engulfing West Asia.
Caught in the middle are India’s 10 million-strong diaspora across the Gulf and the broader region. Their security and livelihoods depend on regional stability and on a foreign policy that is not merely reactive, but principled. India’s balancing act is not new, but as this crisis deepens, the space between silence and solidarity is becoming harder to occupy.
India’s cautious stance on the US-Iran conflict reflects a long-standing strategic dilemma: balancing global partnerships while protecting regional interests. While New Delhi has called for restraint and dialogue, its refusal to explicitly condemn attacks on Iran exposes the limits of its proclaimed autonomy—shaped in large part by decades of alignment with Washington and evolving ties with Israel and Gulf states.
As the conflict escalates and global reactions pour in urging de-escalation, India’s approach will continue to be scrutinized, both at home and across the region, for its implications on regional stability and the credibility of its foreign policy.
---
*Freelance content writer & editor based in Nagpur; co-founder, TruthScape
Comments