About the author
Lt Col Manoj K Channan (Retd) served in the Indian Army, Armoured Corps, 65 Armoured Regiment, 27 August 83- 07 April 2007. Operational experience in the Indian Army includes Sri Lanka – OP PAWAN, Nagaland and Manipur – OP HIFAZAT, and Bhalra - Bhaderwah, District Doda Jammu and Kashmir, including setting up of a counter-insurgency school – OP RAKSHAK. He regularly contributes to Defence and Security issues in the Financial Express online, Defence and Strategy, Fauji India Magazine and Salute Magazine.
*Views are personal.
In geopolitics, the only constant is change. The current turmoil in West Asia highlights this reality more starkly than at any time in recent decades. The region once operated within a broadly accepted framework: freedom of navigation, respect for international infrastructure, and careful diplomatic balancing among major powers. Today, that framework appears increasingly fragile.
For India, the stakes are exceptionally high. New Delhi has spent decades cultivating relationships across competing blocs in the region. Its efforts to maintain strategic ties with the US and Iran showcase a proactive approach, encouraging the audience to recognise India’s agency in complex geopolitics.
At stake are not only diplomacy but also energy security, trade routes, and the stability of a region that hosts millions of Indian expatriates. Emphasising regional stability can inspire the audience to see India’s role as crucial for collective security and prosperity.
A Tradition of Strategic Autonomy
India’s foreign policy has historically emphasised strategic autonomy rather than rigid alliances. This tradition demonstrates resilience and independence, fostering respect and admiration for India’s diplomatic approach.
There are notable examples. During the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, India openly challenged U.S. policy in South Asia. Decades later, even while negotiating the Indo-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement, India’s leadership publicly criticised the U.S. invasion of Iraq. These moments illustrate a key principle: India has often pursued cooperation with Washington without surrendering its diplomatic independence.
There is a notable shift in India voicing its concerns about its National Interests.
This approach has allowed New Delhi to cultivate relationships across ideological divides. The challenge today is that the geopolitical environment has become far more polarised, raising concerns about potential escalation or realignment of regional alliances, which could force India to reassess its balancing strategy and adapt to emerging threats or opportunities.
The U.S.–Israel Axis and India
India’s partnership with the United States has strengthened considerably since the early 2000s. Defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, and technological collaboration have grown rapidly. Israel, meanwhile, has become one of India’s most important defence allies, supplying advanced weapons systems and surveillance technology.
These relationships offer clear advantages. Access to cutting-edge technology enhances India’s military strength. Working with Washington also helps counterbalance China’s rise, to what extent is a question.
However, alignment with the U.S.–Israel axis involves diplomatic risks in West Asia. Iran, for example, considers Israel its primary regional adversary. Any apparent Indian support for Israel inevitably influences Tehran’s view of New Delhi. Likewise, public opinion in many Arab countries remains highly sensitive to the Palestinian issue and regional conflicts.
India, therefore, faces a fine balance: expanding security cooperation with Israel and the United States without alienating partners in the Gulf and Iran.
The Iran Relationship: Strategic Geography
India’s ties with Iran are rooted in geography and history. Iran provides India with strategic access to Central Asia and Afghanistan via the Chabahar port project. This corridor enables India to bypass Pakistan and reach markets and resources in Central Asia.
Beyond logistics, Iran has occasionally played an important diplomatic role for India. One lesser-known example dates back to 1994. At that time, India faced the possibility of a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemning it over Kashmir. Such a resolution could have led to sanctions when India’s economy was already fragile.
Through quiet diplomacy, India convinced Iran to block the move within the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation consensus process. The resolution collapsed before reaching the Security Council, sparing India significant diplomatic harm.
This episode demonstrated the practical importance of India’s relationship with Tehran. However, in later years, as Iran faced Western sanctions over its nuclear program, India gradually reduced its economic engagement under U.S. pressure.
The result is a relationship that remains strategically significant but politically complex.
The Gulf Cooperation Council: Economic Lifeline
While Iran remains strategically important, the GCC states are crucial to India’s economy. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman together supply a large part of India’s oil and gas needs. Millions of Indian workers reside there, sending back billions of dollars in remittances.
Recently, the Gulf has also become a key investment partner. Bold economic plans, such as Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and the UAE’s focus on artificial intelligence and cutting-edge technology, have opened new opportunities for Indian companies.
For decades, the Gulf monarchies relied on the United States as their primary security provider, with American military bases across the region to defend against regional threats. However, this security setup is now under pressure.
The Hormuz Factor and Energy Vulnerability
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most critical chokepoints in the global energy system. About one-fifth of the world’s oil and a significant share of liquefied natural gas exports pass through this narrow waterway.
A disruption in Hormuz has immediate global consequences. For India, which imports most of its energy needs, the impact would be severe. Recent developments show how fragile the system can be. Even without a formal blockade, shipping through the strait can halt if insurance markets withdraw coverage.
Maritime insurers and reinsurers play a key role in global shipping logistics. If they consider the risk too high, vessels stop sailing. This situation means that financial decisions, rather than military actions, can effectively shut down energy flows. For India, the message is clear: regional instability can quickly lead to economic vulnerability.
Iran’s Strategic Calculus
Iran’s military strategy depends heavily on asymmetric warfare. Instead of matching U.S. capabilities directly, Tehran focuses on targeting infrastructure and logistics.
Missiles and drones can threaten energy facilities, desalination plants, ports, and military bases across the Gulf. Even relatively inexpensive systems can impose huge costs on enemies forced to respond with advanced defences.
Iran also has significant strategic depth. Its mountainous terrain, large population, and decades of experience under sanctions have shaped a national security approach based on endurance and resilience.
From Tehran’s view, regional countries hosting U.S. military bases become legitimate targets during conflict, increasing the risk of escalation throughout the Gulf region.
Fragility of the Gulf Model
The GCC states have experienced remarkable economic growth over the past fifty years. However, their economic model depends on a few key foundations: hydrocarbon exports, imported labour, and extensive external security guarantees.
Several vulnerabilities are often overlooked.
Many Gulf states rely on imports for the majority of their food. Fresh water supplies are heavily dependent on energy-intensive desalination plants. Major population centres are located along exposed coastlines with limited natural defences.
In a prolonged conflict scenario, these vulnerabilities could become critical.
Even minor disruptions to infrastructure could cause cascading effects on water supply, electricity generation, and economic activity. The outcome would be not just military risk but systemic economic instability.
Economic Consequences of Escalation
If the Strait of Hormuz were significantly disrupted even temporarily, global energy markets would face an immediate shock. About twenty million barrels of oil normally pass through the strait daily. Alternative pipeline routes can handle only a small part of that volume. Liquefied natural gas shipments from Qatar, a major provider to Asia, also rely heavily on this route.
A prolonged disruption would sharply raise energy prices and put pressure on global supply chains. For India, such a scenario would increase import costs, worsen inflation, and potentially slow economic growth.
India’s Strategic Options
Given these dynamics, India faces three broad strategic options.
The first is clear alignment with the U.S.–Israel axis. This would strengthen defence cooperation and technological integration, but could harm relations with Iran and complicate India’s standing in parts of the Islamic world.
The second is a closer engagement with Iran and other regional powers outside the Western alliance system. While this might improve access to Central Asia and alternative economic networks, it risks causing friction with Washington.
The third option, and the one India has traditionally preferred, is calibrated neutrality. This approach enables India to maintain relationships with all major players while avoiding direct involvement in regional conflicts.
However, neutrality requires careful diplomacy, as even symbolic gestures can be interpreted as alignment in a polarised environment.
The Case for Strategic Balance
India’s interests ultimately centre on regional stability rather than confrontation. Maintaining strong ties with the United States and Israel is crucial for defence modernisation. Simultaneously, preserving relations with Iran ensures strategic connectivity to Central Asia.
Equally important are India’s partnerships with the GCC states, which are vital for energy security and economic cooperation.
In this complex environment, openly aligning with any single bloc could create unnecessary vulnerabilities.
A balanced approach enables India to serve as a bridge rather than a participant in regional rivalries.
Conclusion
The evolving crisis in West Asia highlights the limits of traditional geopolitical assumptions. Military power, financial markets, and regional politics now intersect in ways that can quickly reshape global stability.
For India, the challenge is to navigate this turbulence without sacrificing strategic autonomy. Neutrality does not mean passivity; it means pursuing national interests through careful diplomacy, diversified partnerships, and a clear understanding of the region’s shifting dynamics.
If managed wisely, India could emerge not only as a stable actor in a volatile neighbourhood but also as a crucial diplomatic bridge between competing geopolitical blocs.
In a world where alliances are fluid and conflicts unpredictable, that balance may prove to be India’s greatest strategic asset.