There is a raging debate in India on whether the country should mediate in the Iran war. Those in favour argue that India’s unique relationships with Tehran, Washington, and the Gulf as well as its global standing make it the natural mediator between Tehran and Washington. Others have referenced Nehruvian diplomacy, the Korean precedent in particular, to show that India once mattered in international mediation and can again, if indeed there is political will. It is a seductive argument, but it is wrong. Here’s why.

Let me begin with an uncomfortable question: Why are we even debating this when we didn’t hear any of this during the Ukraine war? If you trace the timing of the mediation argument in New Delhi, you will realise that the ongoing debate is not a result of India identifying a clear strategic interest in brokering peace or an opening where it could make a genuine difference or because the parties to the war invited India to mediate. None of that. The debate resulted from Pakistan taking the initiative to mediate together with Turkey and Egypt, and offered a negotiating venue. The response in India has been one of competitive anxiety: If Pakistan can, why not us! At best, that is a fear of missing out. At worst, its jealousy of a smaller neighbour attracting the kind of attention some in our strategic community believe India deserves. But neither the fear of missing out nor jealousy is a sound basis for good foreign policy.

To be fair, some voices calling for........

© hindustantimes