India’s stakes in Iran-Israel conflict — and why it does not want tensions to escalate

“We are seriously concerned at the escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran which threatens the peace and security in the region. We call for immediate de-escalation, exercise of restraint, stepping back from violence and return to the path of diplomacy,” India said, adding that “It is vital that security and stability are maintained in the region.”

The Ministry of External Affairs is closely monitoring the evolving situation and the Indian embassies in the region are in close touch with the Indian community.

An escalation had been expected.

India had been expecting an escalation, which had led to the issuing of an advisory on April 12. As the war clouds hovered over West Asia, New Delhi advised Indians to not travel to Iran and Israel till further notice, “in view of the prevailing situation in the region”.

“All those who are currently residing in Iran or Israel are requested to get in touch with Indian Embassies there and register themselves,” the MEA advisory said. It added: “They are also requested to observe utmost precautions about their safety and restrict their movements to the minimum.”

From 2020 to 2024, there is a pattern to Iranian retaliation.

The Iranian attack was in response to the suspected Israeli strike on April 1 on an Iranian consular building in Syria’s Damascus that killed 12 people, including a senior general. It follows a playbook from four years ago. American intelligence officials had warned on April 12 that Iran could carry out reprisal attacks in the next 48 hours.

In January 2020, when former Quds Force chief Qassem Soleimani was killed, Tehran responded days later by firing ballistic missiles at US forces stationed at al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq.

At that time, Iran had attacked two bases in Iraq that housed American troops with a barrage of missiles, fulfilling Tehran’s promise to retaliate for the killing of the top Iranian commander.

“The fierce revenge by the Revolutionary Guards has begun,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps said in a statement on a Telegram messaging app channel in January 2020. Iraqi military officials had said that Iran had fired 22 missiles at two military bases in Iraq where American troops are stationed.

United States officials initially said there were no immediate indications of American casualties, and senior Iraqi officials later said that there were no American or Iraqi casualties in the strikes.

Cut to April 2024. Israeli military’s spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said Iran fired scores of drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles — with the vast majority intercepted outside Israel’s borders. He said warplanes intercepted over 10 cruise missiles alone, also outside Israeli airspace.

Hagari said a handful of missiles landed in Israel. Rescuers said a 7-year-old girl in a Bedouin Arab town was seriously wounded in southern Israel, apparently in a missile strike, though they said police were still investigating the circumstances of her injuries. Hagari said a missile struck an army base, causing light damage but no injuries.

Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency quoted a statement by the Iran Revolutionary Guard acknowledging launching “dozens of drones and missiles towards the occupied territories and positions of the Zionist regime”.

The Iran attacks have the potential to push India to a difficult spot. Here’s why.

A potential response by Israel threatens to escalate the situation and expand the conflict. This is a big worry for New Delhi, which has already flagged the possible expansion of the conflict.

Since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas in southern Israel, the Indian leadership has spoken to counterparts in the region — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine among others — to express concern about the dangers of a possible escalation and the widening of the conflict.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Egyptian President Abdel Fatah El-Sisi exchanged views over the phone on October 29 last year. On January 25-26, when French President Emmanuel Macron came to India and met PM Modi, the two leaders expressed grave concern at the expansion of the conflict in the region, including the Red Sea.

India has strategic ties with both Iran and Israel — and for decades, it has been able to balance between the two sides. But if the conflict widens, it would be difficult for it to maintain an ambivalent position.

India has a very deep strategic relationship with Israel, especially in the context of defence and security partnership. In the last decade or so, it has grown and has been made public — unlike in the past. This has led to India lending support to Israel in the first few hours of the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas.

The two sides have strong concerns about extremism and terrorism, as both have suffered during the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. Israel has also emerged as a major defence supplier, along with the US, France and Russia, and New Delhi remembers that it has stepped up to help during times of crisis, including the Kargil war in 1999.

At the same time, India has managed to maintain a strategic relationship with Iran, as Tehran has been one of the major suppliers of crude — which has suffered setbacks due to sanctions. Besides, both countries have shared concerns on terrorism emanating from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The two countries have similar concerns on Taliban’s treatment of minorities and the lack of an inclusive and representative government in Kabul.

Chabahar is another strategic economic project, which acts as a gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia — since Pakistan denies land transit to Indian goods.

In the context of such deep ties with both Israel and Iran, New Delhi has difficulty in choosing sides.

There have been a few difficult moments in the past too.

The Israel-Iran tension has spilt over to India a few times — much to New Delhi’s discomfiture.

The one major case was the February 2012 attack on an Israeli diplomat’s wife in New Delhi, and it was alleged that Tehran was behind the attack.

In recent years, there have been diplomatic verbal face-offs between the Israeli ambassador and the Iranian embassy in Delhi. In 2021, after Israel envoy Naor Gilon called Iran “the biggest destabilizer” in the Middle East, the Iranian embassy in New Delhi called Gilon’s comments “the childish remarks” of an “evil-minded Zionist envoy,” and Israel a “terror house” and a “selfish and bloodthirsty regime.”

New Delhi has always asked the two sides to calm down and maintain restraint in a “friendly third country”.

An escalation between the two countries has direct and tangible consequences for India.

For New Delhi, a potential escalation as a result of the tension means an impact on mainly three accounts: its people, its economic interests and strategic needs.

Firstly, while there are about 18,000 Indians in Israel and about 5,000-10,000 Indians in Iran, about 90 lakh people are living and working in the Gulf and West Asia region. Any conflict that expands will end up posing a risk to the Indian community that is based in the region.

Secondly, India’s economic interests are tied to energy security — the West Asia region contributes to India’s 80 per cent of oil supplies, which a potential conflict will impact. India has been able to minimise the impact of oil prices due to the Russia-Ukraine war by buying Russian oil at discounted prices, but this conflict will have an adverse impact on energy prices.

Thirdly, India has invested in a strategic relationship with major Arab countries, Iran, and Israel. New Delhi sees the region as its extended neighbourhood, and it has been working with all sides in the turbulent region to push for the India-Middle-East-Europe Economic corridor, which has strategic as well as economic benefits for Delhi. A conflict has the potential to unravel the consensus that has been built around the peace in the otherwise combustible region.

India’s position that there should be “immediate de-escalation” and “step back from violence” and “return to the path of diplomacy” is, therefore, crucial to its national interest.