Could India have done more to prevent the Iran war?

A question that is being asked in India as well as abroad is this: did India do enough to try and stop the US-Israel war against Iran? Realistically speaking, whether India “did enough” depends on the analytical framework used. Observers who view India through the lens of a rising global power or regional mediator argue that New Delhi abdicated its responsibilities, while those aligned with “realist statecraft” maintain that India successfully insulated its core interests from a conflict it had no capacity to stop.

Criticism of India’s approach

India’s diplomatic response to the US-Israel war against Iran has been characterised by some analysts as a policy of “calculated neutrality” rather than active intervention. While New Delhi formally appealed for de-escalation, diplomacy, and civilian safety, critics argue that its muted stance and close alignment with Washington signalled deference rather than proactive mediation. They assert that the key aspects of India’s stance include:

More from Opinion

Selective Condemnation: India remained silent on the US-Israel military strikes and high-profile assassinations in Iran while actively condemning subsequent Iranian counter-attacks targeting Gulf Arab countries. India co-sponsored a UN resolution led by the Gulf Cooperation Council that condemned Iranian attacks on Gulf states and Jordan. This text did not mention the initial US-Israel strikes against Iran and was adopted by the UN Security Council as Resolution 2817 on 11 March 2026.

Prioritising Multi-Alignment: New Delhi attempted to balance its strategic and economic ties with the United States, Israel, and Gulf nations with its historic relationship with Tehran. Prior to the conflict, India deepened its ties with Israel, which observers argue limited its leverage to dissuade US-Israeli military action.

Prioritising Citizens and Expatriates: India focused heavily on safeguarding the roughly 10 million Indian expatriates working across the Persian Gulf, advocating generally for dialogue, diplomacy, and de-escalation to ensure civilian safety.

Protecting Interests over Intervention: India’s primary diplomatic actions were inward-looking, focusing on evacuating citizens and mitigating global supply chain impacts.

Thus, in the view of such critics, India chose a path of deliberate diplomatic silence, opting not to intervene or actively mediate to stop the US-Israel war against Iran.

 The opposite viewpoint

Conversely, defenders of the Indian government’s policy argue that attempting to block the war would have been a reckless miscalculation for several reasons, such as:

Lack of Direct Leverage: Realists point out that India is a middle-tier superpower that simply lacked the military or financial muscle to alter the strategic objectives of the United States or Israel.

Securing Energy and Shipping Passages: India managed to successfully protect its economic lifeline. Through quiet, transactional diplomacy, New Delhi negotiated with Tehran to ensure that Indian-flagged commercial vessels were given safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. India also secured temporary US sanctions waivers to offload pre-existing Iranian oil shipments and ramp up alternative imports from Russia.

Protecting Essential Western Ties: India’s long-term economic growth depends heavily on Western technology, investment, and defence co-development, such as the joint Barak-8 missile defence system developed with Israel. Straining ties with Washington or Tel Aviv to defend Tehran was viewed as fundamentally contrary to India’s national self-interest.

Where lies the truth?

India had no meaningful leverage to stop the US and Israel from carrying out the attacks against Iran. At the same time, having previously yielded to American sanctions by halting Iranian oil imports and distancing itself from traditional non-aligned stances, India found itself with very little direct diplomatic influence over the Iranian leadership. Furthermore, as a nation heavily dependent on Gulf energy supplies and home to a massive expatriate population, India’s primary concern was managing the domestic fallout of the war rather than mediating the core dispute. While the Indian leadership sought to preserve diplomatic ties with all sides, its foreign policy ultimately deferred to American strategic priorities. Consequently, it lacked the unilateral influence needed to force a halt to hostilities.

While proactive backchannel diplomacy or mediation efforts could have theoretically fostered dialogue, India’s broader strategic trajectory favoured non-interference over risking its foundational alliances in the region. Thus, rather than acting as a mediator, India’s approach centred on quiet diplomacy, travel advisories for its citizens, and economic adjustments to weather the global fallout of the crisis.

Conclusion

Ultimately, India’s approach to the US-Israel war against Iran is based on realism. While some critics argue that India’s response was subdued and signifies a departure from its traditional non-aligned values, this perspective overlooks the realities of modern statecraft. India sought to protect its energy supply lines and prioritise the welfare of its people. Thus, India’s policy is a deliberate diplomatic strategy designed to manage a severe strategic crisis without sacrificing national interests.

In conclusion, India’s policy regarding the US-Israel war against Iran is both structurally sound and intensely practical. By anchoring its response in safeguarding energy supply lines, protecting millions of citizens in the Gulf, and preserving invaluable partnerships, New Delhi has successfully insulated its domestic economy from catastrophic blowback. In a fragmented global order, India’s calculated silence is not an index of indecision, but a deliberate, highly effective strategy to protect its national interests amid the flames of regional conflict.

(The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as ambassador in Kuwait and Morocco and as consul general in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)