Expert highlights India's role as a stabilising actor in the region.
Parshwati Saha interviews Dr. Sreshtha Chakraborty, Assistant Professor, Bennett University, on the Iran-Israel conflict, the US role, and India's concerns.
Ques. How do you assess the potential long-term impact of Iran-Israel conflict on the broader Middle East security landscape?
Ans: The Israeli strike is seen within the broader arc of deteriorating trust and failed diplomacy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli authorities have asserted that Iran now has enough enriched uranium, justifying their military action as a necessary preventative measure to fight what they see as an existential danger. Israeli cynicism on the feasibility of continued diplomatic attempts is reflected in this. However, Iran has strongly refuted these claims, calling the strike an act of aggression and highlighting its regional deterrence strategy through Hamas and Hezbollah networks. The strike's timing couldn't be more crucial—the already precarious U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations, set for June 15 in Oman, might be completely derailed by this escalation. Because Iran may react directly or through proxies like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iraqi militias, the assaults have significantly increased the probability of regional violence and raised the possibility of a multifront conflict. Gulf nations like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will probably feel more exposed, forcing them to reevaluate their security strategies by forging closer connections with outside actors. This escalation poses a geopolitical challenge for the United States, which must manage larger international obligations while striking a balance between attempts to prevent Iranian aggression and backing for Israel. While growing economic strain may exacerbate domestic discontent, the Iranian government may use the situation to settle situations at home. The danger to energy infrastructure, especially in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, may cause an increase in oil prices and might generate long-term market instability. India, China, and several Gulf countries that have upheld strategic neutrality between Israel and Iran may suddenly encounter significant diplomatic difficulties. Both countries will probably face pressure to either denounce or back the move, which may pressure their defence and trade relationships and make them reevaluate their foreign policy approaches. As unilateral military acts increasingly take the role of diplomacy, the crisis represents a larger breakdown of the multilateral security system, heightening regional instability and uncertainty on a global scale.
Ques: India has maintained a delicate balancing act in its foreign policy, having good relations with both Israel and Iran. In light of this escalation, how should India navigate its diplomatic strategy in the region, especially considering its growing energy ties with Iran and defence relations with Israel?
Ans: India must respond to the developing Israel-Iran confrontation with strategic autonomy that allows it to protect its expanding interests without becoming embroiled in regional conflicts. India cannot afford to take a dichotomous approach since it has substantial defence and technology collaboration with Israel and is also strengthening its energy and connectivity links with Iran. Instead, a more nuanced, interest-driven approach that decouples its bilateral ties is required; it should engage Iran for energy security and strategic access to Central Asia through Chabahar Port while relying on Israel for vital defence and innovation. India's diplomatic messaging should be guided by its long-standing balancing strategy, which has now developed into multi-alignment. It should emphasise de-escalation, diplomacy, and commitment to international norms without being partisan or moralistic.
India's diplomatic strategy is clear: maintain neutrality, prevent escalation, and safeguard its core interests during one of the most perilous standoffs in recent history between Israel and Iran.
The Ministry of External Affairs reaffirmed this stance on June 13, 2025, voicing extreme concern about the state of affairs and allegations of nuclear facility strikes. It advocated using current diplomatic channels to address tensions and encouraged both parties to avoid further escalation. India said it remains ready to provide any assistance, highlighting its cordial and strong connections with both Iran and Israel. Additionally, the administration affirmed that Indian missions in both nations maintained communication with local populations and cautioned Indian citizens to heed local security advice. India has long taken a practical and non-aligned stance in Middle Eastern disputes, cautiously avoiding either Israel or its adversaries in the Arab or Persian realms. The current state of affairs, which is characterised by direct hostilities and the possibility of further external participation, presents a more complicated problem. The intensifying conflict poses significant challenges because explicit support for one faction may exacerbate relations with the opposing side and threaten crucial interests, encompassing defence cooperation, energy security, and regional connectivity.
Ques: The United States has stated it had no direct role in Israel’s recent actions against Iran. Can it remain distant in this conflict?
Ans: The inconsistencies in former President Donald Trump's foreign policy are brought to light by the disintegration of his Middle East strategy, especially his attempt to strike a balance between his isolationist rhetoric and his steadfast support for Israel. Despite Trump's pleas for restraints, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu launched a massive Operation Rising Lion on Iran, directly challenging Trump's unwillingness to involve the United States in another regional conflict. The already precarious nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran that were about to take place in Oman were ruined by this unilateral move by Israel, which also revealed the limitations of American diplomatic efforts under Trump. At the same time, Trump's "America First" policy contradicts their demand for unwavering support for Israel. With U.S. troops stationed in the region, any Iranian retaliation could place American lives at risk, undermining Trump's promise to avoid entanglements abroad. In effect, the collapse of diplomacy and Israel’s defiance of U.S. counsel has weakened Trump’s image as a dealmaker and eroded Washington’s leverage in the region, revealing the strategic flaws of a foreign policy driven more by political optics than coherent long-term planning.
Ques: How do you see India’s role evolving in the event of further escalations between Israel and Iran, especially considering its involvement in multilateral forums like the UN and its interests in maintaining regional stability?
Ans: India may establish itself as a reliable voice for de-escalation, non-proliferation, and peaceful conflict resolution in the Middle East at the multilateral level by utilising its historical connections and dedication to international law. India is in a good position to support backchannel diplomacy and steps to create trust through the United Nations and organisations like BRICS, SCO, and I2U2, either on its own or in collaboration with like-minded nations. It can also advocate for joint appeals or emergency talks to protect diplomatic space and stop further military escalation. In addition to giving India strategic power to protect its larger interests in the area, this proactive multilateral participation will strengthen India's reputation as a responsible global actor dedicated to stability and discourse.
Ques: Could India play a more prominent role in mediation, or should New Delhi remain on the sidelines?
Ans: External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has indicated that India does not support third-party intervention in conflicts unless the directly involved countries are amenable to it. He emphasised that India maintains good relations with both Israel and Iran and has issued statements expressing concern. This illustrates India's tactful and deferential diplomatic approach, prioritising communication and strategic autonomy while avoiding involvement. India must also consider the risks of taking a more visible mediation role. The complex and deeply entrenched nature of the Israel-Iran conflict, combined with competing influences from major powers like the U.S. and Russia, suggests that India’s efforts could be constrained or politicised. Therefore, rather than pursuing a headline-grabbing mediator role, India’s strength lies in subtle, pragmatic engagement—utilising multilateral forums and trusted bilateral channels to promote dialogue, stability, and peaceful conflict resolution. This approach balances India’s interests while enhancing its credibility as a constructive actor.
(Parshwati Saha is a communications specialist. The views expressed by the expert are her own views.)
