Strategic neutrality is our best bet

As tensions rise between Israel and Iran, the Middle East is once again at the precipice of a wider conflict.

For India, this escalating confrontation presents a complex challenge. Balancing its relationships with two important regional powers — Israel and Iran — requires deft diplomacy, strategic neutrality and an unwavering commitment to peace. India must steer clear of taking sides while using its diplomatic clout to advocate de-escalation and a return to dialogue. India’s ties with both Israel and Iran are strategic and longstanding, but also deeply intertwined in different ways.

The complexity of these relationships was manifest this week when Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed support for Israel in its fight against terrorism while, at the same time, Indian naval ships docked in Iran for a training mission. These seemingly contradictory actions underscore how delicately balanced India’s interests are in this volatile region of competing interests.

India’s relationship with Israel, especially in defence and security, has flourished over the past two decades. Israel is one of India’s primary sources of military technology, including advanced drones and missile systems. The two countries also share intelligence on counterterrorism, positioning Israel as a key partner in India’s security matrix.

On the other hand, Iran plays a pivotal role in India’s energy security and regional connectivity. Despite sanctions, Iran remains a critical supplier of oil to India. The Chabahar port project, which provides India with a gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan, is a cornerstone of India’s geopolitical strategy.

Severing ties with Iran would jeopardise this crucial initiative and hurt India’s energy imports.

The growing threat of an Israel–Iran war could severely disrupt India’s trade routes, particularly through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. Nearly 68 per cent of India’s trade is conducted via sea, with the majority passing through these vulnerable waters. A widening conflict carries the risks of increasing shipping costs, forcing Indian businesses to consider longer, more expensive routes like the Cape of Good Hope, which would delay shipments by weeks and escalate costs. Energy security is another critical concern.

Despite its diversification of energy sources, including an increasing share of Russian oil, nearly 45 per cent of India’s oil still comes from the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which much of this oil flows, could become a target in the conflict, threatening India’s energy supplies and driving up global oil prices. Inflation, already a concern for the Indian economy, would rise, and the country’s current account deficit could widen, making economic recovery more difficult.

Culturally, India and Iran share deep ties, with Persian influences evident in Indian art, architecture and language. Thus, severing relations with Tehran or being seen as an adversary would not only harm India’s geopolitical interests but also alienate a long-standing ally.

Given the stakes, India must resist the pressure from the West and stay neutral in the Israel–Iran conflict. Siding with Israel, despite the strong defence ties, would alienate Iran and jeopardise key strategic interests, including energy security and regional connectivity through the Chabahar port. Conversely, siding with Iran would strain relations with Israel, a valuable partner in defence technology and intelligence sharing. India’s challenge in this conflict is to maintain a neutral stance that does not alienate either Israel or Iran.

Any overt show of support for Israel could jeopardise India’s relations with Iran and the broader Middle East, where millions of Indians work and send remittances back home. A large portion of India’s energy imports come from the Gulf region, and maintaining stable relations with the Arab world is essential for India’s energy security and the welfare of its diaspora. India’s policy of non-alignment has historically allowed it to maintain good relations with countries across political divides, from the US and Russia to Israel and Iran.

In the case of the Israel–Iran conflict, this Nehruvian principle of ‘strategic autonomy’ must continue to guide India’s approach. Neutrality will allow India to protect its interests on both sides while positioning itself as a voice of peace and stability in a volatile region.

India’s diplomatic influence, honed over decades of engagement in the Middle East, is an opportunity to contribute to peace in the region. India should leverage its relationships with both Israel and Iran to push for dialogue and de-escalation. The MEA’s (Ministry of External Affairs) recent statement urging restraint and the protection of civilians was a step in the right direction, but more can and should be done.

Domestically, the Modi government must be cautious in its public statements and actions concerning the Israel–Iran conflict. The BJP’s political base, its Hindutva elements, view Israel favourably. But supporting Israel overtly could also exacerbate tensions within India’s diverse society. The Modi government must avoid any rhetoric that could be construed as taking sides in the conflict. Instead, the emphasis should be on India’s commitment to non-alignment and its desire to see peace in the Middle East. This balanced approach will serve India’s long-term interests, both domestically and internationally.

India has long been an advocate of peaceful resolution of conflicts and can work through multilateral institutions like the United Nations to encourage a diplomatic solution. Additionally, India’s relationships with Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE — key regional players — give it leverage in urging restraint and mediating discussions. With the announcement of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), a project that promises to enhance regional trade, India has an even greater stake in ensuring peace in the region.

India’s interests in the Middle East are too crucial to be jeopardised by taking sides in the Israel-Iran conflict. By maintaining neutrality, India can safeguard its energy supplies, protect its trade routes, and preserve its strategic initiatives in the region. More than that, India has the potential to act as a stabilising force, using its diplomatic capital to promote peace and prevent further escalation.

In a world increasingly divided by geopolitical rivalries, India’s role as a mediator and advocate for diplomacy is more important than ever. In this moment of crisis, the government of India must act swiftly and decisively — not by picking sides, but by championing peace.

Ashok Swain is professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden