"We started this war due to pressure..."
This is how the world got pushed into yet another forever war, impacting everyone in some measure. While the US counterterrorism chief, Joe Kent, holds Israel responsible for the war waged on Iran in his resignation letter, at this stage, it's almost pointless to assign accountability. The ongoing Iran-Israel-US war has quickly acquired the familiar logic of a forever war, where battle victories do not open any credible pathway to political closure. For India, the significance of this war lies less in its battlefield dynamics and more in what it reveals about the costs of entanglement and the discipline required to avoid it.
The conflict's most immediate global consequence has been the disruption of energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global petroleum - and nearly half of India's crude imports - transit. Even partial disruption has been enough to send oil prices sharply higher, with knock-on effects across currencies, inflation, and trade balances. India's vulnerability here is structural: it imports over 80% of its crude, with nearly half sourced from West Asia.
The economic shock is already visible, and India's concerns aren't just existing on macro levels. The rupee has fallen to record lows, pressured by a surge in crude prices and capital outflows, while Brent crude has climbed close to $100 per barrel after rising roughly 40% since the conflict intensified. Every $10 increase in oil prices significantly widens India's current account deficit and feeds directly into inflation, eroding domestic demand and fiscal stability. The crisis around the supply disruption of the cooking gas is already making its heat felt.
While India could stay largely unaffected during the other ongoing forever war, the Russia-Ukraine conflict - this one has reached home. Faced with supply uncertainty, New Delhi has moved with quiet urgency: ramping up purchases of discounted Russian crude - reportedly 30 million barrels in a single week - after Washington "allowed" flexibility.
Iran sits astride India's access routes to Central Asia and remains relevant to its connectivity ambitions. Despite extensive strikes and infrastructure damage, Iran retains the capacity to retaliate and disrupt global energy markets. India is also the BRICS chair currently, with Iran and the Gulf countries being the grouping's members. So far, New Delhi has been able to assert its strategic autonomy. India maintains deepening ties with the United States and Israel in technology and defence, yet it has not joined any military or sanctions coalition against Iran. India knows from the neighbourhood experience that participation in a conflict with no defined end state offers little strategic upside and considerable economic risk.
For India, the implications for participating in other countries' forever wars in any capacity are stark. Direct involvement in such conflicts would not only strain resources but also import instability into an economy still consolidating its growth trajectory. Unlike Cold War-era alliances, today's conflicts offer fewer guarantees and higher spillover risks. India is acutely sensitive to external shocks at the moment. The current crisis has already forced adjustments in domestic policy like curbs on gas supplies to industry, prioritisation of domestic fuel consumption, and contingency planning for prolonged disruptions.
So far so good. Can this strategic autonomy endure? As the Iran conflict expands, pressures will mount from all directions. The Gulf countries, Iran, and Israel would ask India for a show of solidarity. The US anyway wields the tariffs and sanctions whip. New Delhi will have to build capabilities in order to maintain its autonomy in such a scenario. But this capacity building has reputational risks, too.
By continuing to deepen energy ties with Russia while avoiding a firmer diplomatic stance on the unprovoked attacks on Iran, New Delhi invites the perception that short-term economic considerations are eclipsing longer-term geopolitical positioning. This may complicate trust with key partners. India's caution, while rational, may be interpreted as passivity in moments that demand leadership. A country that aspires to shape global norms and eventually emerge as "Vishwaguru" cannot indefinitely remain a careful bystander.
The attacks on Iran and the consequent instability in West Asia have exposed the vulnerabilities of energy-dependent economies like India, the limits of military coercion, and, most importantly, the utter breakdown of diplomacy when the actors don't negotiate in good faith. The fact that Iran was attacked by the US in a surprise move while the negotiations between the two countries were still ongoing in Oman demonstrates that diplomatic channels can be disrupted by military adventurism at any moment, at any pretext.
Strategic autonomy demands relentless capability building.
(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
