While strategic autonomy remains a central principle of Indian foreign policy, the conditions under which it operates are becoming increasingly complex. As geopolitical rivalries deepen and strategic partnerships expand, preserving diplomatic flexibility requires increasingly greater political effort.

The United States–Israeli military campaign against Iran between June 2025 and April 2026 posed one of the most consequential foreign policy tests for India in recent years. Unlike many countries that found themselves broadly aligned with one side of the conflict, New Delhi occupied a far more complicated position. India had substantial, though unequal, strategic interests tied to all three principal actors. The United States remains one of India’s most important strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific, Israel is among its closest defence and technology partners, and Iran continues to hold significant geopolitical value through connectivity projects, access to Central Asia, regional stability and longstanding civilisational ties.

The conflict unfolded in two distinct phases. The first phase began on 13 June 2025 with Israeli strikes against Iranian military, nuclear, security and strategic targets and culminated in direct US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The second phase began on 28 February 2026 with a coordinated US–Israeli campaign targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader and was followed by strikes against Iranian military, security and strategic targets. Both phases quickly evolved into broader regional crises with implications extending well beyond the battlefield.

Rising tensions across the Persian Gulf generated concerns over energy security, maritime trade routes, and the possibility of wider regional escalation. For India, whose economic growth and regional interests remain closely linked to developments in West Asia, the crisis carried both immediate and long-term consequences. New Delhi responded by calling for restraint, de-escalation, and diplomatic engagement while avoiding direct attribution of political responsibility to any of the parties involved.[i]

This unique position forced India to navigate a delicate diplomatic path. Open support for Tehran would have risked damaging relations with Washington and Tel Aviv at a time when India’s strategic competition with China continues to intensify. At the same time, endorsing military action against Iran could have undermined India’s longstanding ties with Tehran and threatened important economic and connectivity interests extending from Chabahar Port to the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC).

An additional indication of India’s carefully calibrated approach was New Delhi’s decision to send Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri on behalf of the Government of India to sign the condolence book opened at the Iranian Embassy following the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, an event officially described by Indian authorities as the leader’s “demise”.[ii] The move attracted attention because India simultaneously maintained its cautious public position on the conflict, avoiding both explicit condemnation of the military campaign and political alignment with Tehran. While largely symbolic, the gesture reflected New Delhi’s effort to preserve diplomatic engagement with Iran during a period of heightened regional tensions.

India’s response reflected a familiar pattern in its foreign policy. Rather than aligning openly with any side, New Delhi emphasised restraint, dialogue and regional stability. Equally significant, however, was what India chose not to do. It neither condemned the United States and Israel in explicit terms nor offered political backing to Iran. Instead, it sought to preserve strategic space and avoid becoming entangled in a conflict that directly affected several of its core interests.

India’s Balancing Act during the War

To understand India’s cautious response, it is necessary to examine the different strategic interests that linked New Delhi to the principal actors involved in the conflict. Each relationship served a distinct purpose, making it difficult for India to align openly with any side without risking costs elsewhere.

The United States has emerged as a critical partner in India’s efforts to manage the shifting balance of power in Asia. Defence cooperation, intelligence sharing, advanced technology partnerships, and coordination within frameworks such as the Quad have steadily expanded over the past decade. Although India has significantly deepened strategic cooperation with the United States, Indian policymakers have continued to emphasise strategic autonomy and independent decision-making as core principles of foreign policy.[iii] The importance both sides attach to this relationship was further underscored during US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to India in May 2026, when he described India as one of America’s most important strategic partners.[iv]

Israel occupies a different but equally important position in India’s strategic calculus. Over the past two decades, it has become one of India’s most reliable defence partners, supplying military equipment, missile systems, surveillance technologies, and expertise in cybersecurity and innovation. However, the relationship extends beyond the defence sphere, especially after 2014. Economic, technological and connectivity interests have acquired growing importance, particularly as India seeks to expand its commercial links with Europe and the Mediterranean. Israel’s role in the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) illustrates how the relationship has evolved into a broader strategic relationship encompassing security, trade, technology and regional connectivity.

Unlike the United States and Israel, Tehran’s value to India is rooted primarily in geography, history and regional connectivity. Historically, Persia served as an important civilisational and commercial gateway linking the Indian subcontinent to West and Central Asia, leaving a lasting imprint on political, cultural and economic exchanges. In the modern era, India and Iran have often found common ground on regional issues, and Tehran has at times played a constructive diplomatic role during periods of heightened tensions between India and Pakistan.

For Indian policymakers, however, Iran’s contemporary significance is largely strategic. Iran provides a critical gateway to Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the wider Eurasian region without requiring transit through Pakistan. India’s investment in Chabahar Port and its involvement in INSTC reflect a long-term effort to secure alternative routes for trade and connectivity. Moreover, although India had largely ceased importing Iranian crude oil before the 2026 war, Iran has continued to be viewed as a potentially important future energy partner. Given........

© IDSA