The escalating confrontation involving Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other represents one of the most dangerous geopolitical crises in West Asia in decades. What began as targeted military strikes has rapidly evolved, over the past four weeks, into a widening regional conflict, with the potential to destabilise the Gulf, disrupt global energy markets, and redraw the strategic balance of the Middle East and the world. Clearly, so far, the war has not contributed positively to regional and global security, and thus needs to be brought to an end at the earliest.
For India, predictably, the conflict presents grave multi-dimensional economic risks. For the Indian military, the conflict provides numerous lessons in modern ‘multi-domain’ warfare of both the conventional and asymmetric kind. And surprising as it may seem, the war could also be an unexpected diplomatic opportunity for India.
This has to be seen in the context that India has always aspired for a leadership role as an ‘independent pole’ in a future multipolar world and thus, needs to step up its actions towards achieving this status. As a country that historically has maintained working relations with all sides in West Asia, India, with its avowed policy of neutrality and ‘strategic autonomy’, may be uniquely positioned to play the role of a credible and genuine mediator. If New Delhi can successfully facilitate dialogue and de-escalation, it could not only help end a dangerous war but also reassert its leadership within the Global South.
The roots of the conflict
The confrontation between Iran and Israel has been simmering for decades. Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Tehran has viewed Israel as an illegitimate state and supported groups committed to opposing Israel’s influence in the region. Israel, in turn, has regarded Iran’s nuclear ambitions and missile programmes as an existential threat.
Over the past two decades, this rivalry evolved into what analysts often describe as a ‘shadow war.’ Israeli strikes frequently targeted Iranian assets and proxy forces in Syria, while Iran expanded its regional influence through allied groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Yemen, Iraq and Syria.
The US has also played a central role in this confrontation. Washington’s efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—combined with economic sanctions and military deployments in the Gulf—have long contributed to tensions between the two countries.
These competing strategic objectives created a volatile environment in which miscalculation was always possible.
The immediate trigger
The current war was triggered when the US and Israel launched coordinated air and missile strikes against Iranian military infrastructure and nuclear-related facilities. The strikes reportedly targeted missile bases, command centres and senior leadership figures in an effort to cripple Iran’s strategic capabilities.
Iran responded with large-scale missile and drone attacks against Israeli territory as well as American military installations in the Gulf region. The exchange marked a dramatic shift from covert confrontation to open interstate warfare. Collateral damage was felt all over the Gulf states, and tensions have soared as a number of oil and gas installations were struck in tit-for-tat attacks.
The conflict quickly widened beyond the immediate participants. Hezbollah in Lebanon intensified rocket attacks against Israel, prompting Israeli military operations along the Lebanese border. Iranian-aligned militias in Iraq and Syria also launched attacks against the US forces stationed in the region.
At the same time, Iran signalled its willingness to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow maritime passage through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply travels.
The economic consequences were immediate. Air travel was disrupted, oil prices surged sharply, global shipping insurance rates spiked, and energy markets have become increasingly volatile.
A region on edge
The broader Middle East now faces the risk of prolonged instability. Several dynamics could further escalate the crisis.
One possibility is the continuation of the war by the US and Israel as a prolonged war of attrition, which would eventually also entail the use of ground troops. Iran may continue to rely on asymmetric warfare, proxy networks and missile strikes in addition to direct conventional confrontation. Israel and the US, meanwhile, could continue targeting Iranian military infrastructure in an attempt to degrade its strategic capabilities further.
A second and more dangerous scenario would involve wider regional escalation. If Hezbollah or the Houthis launch sustained attacks from Lebanon and Yemen, or if Gulf energy and water infrastructure become direct targets, the conflict could quickly expand into a multi-front war.
The third escalation is the continued disruption of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which has been enforced by Iran since the start of the war. Even limited interference with shipping in this narrow waterway, as has already taken place, has sent global energy prices soaring further and triggered severe economic consequences across the world.
These scenarios underscore the fact that the conflict is not merely a regional dispute. Its consequences will be felt globally—in energy markets, supply chains, and geopolitical alignments.
India’s strategic stakes
India has profound interests in the stability of West Asia. The Gulf region is central to India’s energy security, with a large share of its oil imports passing through the Strait of Hormuz. A prolonged conflict that disrupts energy supplies would directly affect India’s economic growth and inflation levels.
The region is also home to millions of Indian expatriate workers whose livelihoods and safety depend on stability in Gulf countries. Any major escalation could force large-scale evacuation operations similar to those India has conducted during previous Middle Eastern crises.
In addition, India has developed strong strategic partnerships with multiple countries in the region. Its relations with Israel have expanded significantly in areas such as defence cooperation, agriculture, and technology. At the same time, India has maintained historically cordial ties with Iran, particularly in energy cooperation and connectivity projects such as the development of the Chabahar port.
Balancing these relationships during a major regional war will require careful diplomacy.
India’s unique diplomatic position
Unlike many global powers, India enjoys a rare advantage in this crisis: it maintains working relations with all the principal actors.
India’s strategic partnership with the United States continues to deepen, while defence and technological cooperation with Israel remains strong. Yet, India has also preserved channels of communication with Iran despite periods of tension between Tehran and the West. This balanced diplomatic profile gives India credibility that very few other major powers possess.
Western powers are often viewed with suspicion in Tehran, while regional actors may distrust mediation led by countries perceived as partisan. India, by contrast, is usually seen as pursuing an independent foreign policy guided by strategic autonomy.
This perception could enable New Delhi to engage all parties without being seen as advancing the agenda of any particular bloc.
A diplomatic roadmap
If India wishes to seize this moment, it must move beyond cautious statements and adopt a proactive but neutral diplomatic strategy.
First, India could initiate quiet back-channel contacts with both Washington and Tehran to explore possibilities for de-escalation. Such informal diplomacy has historically played a crucial role in resolving international crises.
Second, New Delhi could coordinate with neutral regional states—such as Oman and Qatar—that have previously facilitated communication between Iran and Western powers.
Third, India could use its influence within international forums such as the G20 and BRICS to build momentum for a ceasefire and renewed negotiations.
Finally, India could propose a structured diplomatic framework focused on three immediate objectives: preventing attacks on civilian infrastructure, guaranteeing the security of maritime routes in the Gulf, and reopening negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Even limited success in these areas could significantly reduce the risk of a broader regional war.
Leadership of the global south
Beyond immediate crisis management, successful mediation would carry profound geopolitical implications.
Many developing countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America have expressed concern over the escalation of military confrontation in West Asia. Yet the Global South lacks clear diplomatic leadership capable of articulating and advancing a collective position on major international crises.
From the very beginning, India has aspired to play such a role. Its leadership in forums representing developing nations—combined with its economic growth and diplomatic reach—positions it as a natural candidate for this responsibility.
If India can help broker dialogue in the current crisis, it would strengthen its claim to global leadership and demonstrate that middle powers can play constructive roles in resolving major conflicts.
The cost of passivity
Failing to act also carries risks.
A prolonged war in West Asia would place an enormous strain on India’s energy security and economic stability. It could also complicate India’s relations with competing geopolitical blocs.
Moreover, if India does not attempt to fill the diplomatic vacuum, other powers may step forward. Countries such as China or Russia could seek to position themselves as mediators, potentially reshaping regional dynamics in ways that diminish India’s influence.
Conclusion: A moment of strategic opportunity
Wars often reshape international politics in unpredictable ways. While the current conflict poses serious dangers, it also presents India with a rare strategic opportunity.
By acting as a credible and genuinely neutral mediator, India could help steer the region away from prolonged conflict while simultaneously elevating its own diplomatic stature.
Such a role would reflect the core principles that have long guided India’s foreign policy: strategic autonomy, multilateral cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution.
In an increasingly polarised world, a nation capable of building bridges between rival camps becomes indispensable.
The war in West Asia may therefore represent more than a regional crisis. It could become the moment when India steps forward—not merely as a rising power, but as a responsible global leader capable of shaping the course of international events.
(Lt Gen Philip Campose is a former Vice Chief of the Indian Army. He has authored the book ‘A National Security Strategy for India – the Way Forward.’)
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.)