Iran’s Conditional Goodwill: As the ongoing conflict in West Asia—pitting Iran against Israel and the U.S.—enters its 15th day, fears are mounting that its devastating repercussions could plunge the global economy into a severe crisis. Yet, amidst this turmoil, signals emanating from Iran regarding India suggest that the vitality of the historical and cultural ties shared by the two nations remains undiminished.
It is a matter of global knowledge that, following the outbreak of this conflict, Iran has effectively blockaded the Strait of Hormuz—a vital maritime artery—in such a manner that commercial vessels are unable to traverse it. This is particularly significant given that this narrow waterway serves as the transit route for 20 percent of the world’s crude oil supply.
This figure includes more than 50 percent of India’s crude oil imports and 80 percent of its natural gas imports. Consequently, this strait holds immense strategic importance for our nation, as we fulfil over 80 percent of our total petrol and diesel requirements through imports, while our natural gas supply relies on imports to an even greater extent.
The primary reason for the current shortage of fuel gas in India is precisely this inability of Indian cargo vessels to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz. However, just yesterday, Iran granted permission for two Indian cargo vessels—the Shivalik and the Nanda Devi—which had been anchored in the region, to pass through the strait. Both of these vessels are laden with fuel gas. We must view this gesture of goodwill by Iran within the specific geopolitical context emerging from the ongoing conflict and, accordingly, formulate a strategy that effectively safeguards our national interests.
In recent days, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a telephonic conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, while India’s External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, has engaged in four separate telephonic discussions with his Iranian counterpart, Mr. Araghchi. These interactions underscore the continued diplomatic warmth and engagement between the two nations.
This warmth has been articulated in eloquent terms by Mr. Mohammad Fathali, Iran’s Ambassador to India, conveying that—mindful of its historical ties with India—Iran seeks to uphold this friendship and further strengthen their mutual relationship. Following a ceremony, Mr. Fathali was asked whether Iran would grant Indian vessels permission to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz; he responded that India is a friendly nation, as our interests and our core beliefs are aligned. Both our countries share a deep sensitivity toward the hardships faced by ordinary citizens; therefore, you may well hear some good news in the near future.
It is indeed true that the United States and Israel, acting in concert, imposed this conflict upon Iran on February 28—precisely when peace negotiations between Iran and the U.S., mediated by Oman, were underway in Geneva. However, given India’s own close and strategic ties with Iran, as well as with Israel and the United States, India chose to maintain a distance from this conflict.
It declared that it advocates for resolving any dispute not through warfare, but through peaceful means. Furthermore, the objective behind the war initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump against Iran was twofold: to effect a regime change within Iran and to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. In this context, it is also pertinent to note that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); consequently, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) maintains a vigilant watch over its nuclear-related activities and retains the unfettered authority to inspect its nuclear program.
Consequently, reports suggest that Iran has requested India—in its capacity as the current Chair of the BRICS bloc—to condemn the U.S. aggression directed against it, and to pass a resolution expressing gratitude for the security and protection currently being extended to Indian citizens residing in Iran. Iran is now, itself, a member of the BRICS organization; its membership also includes Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia.
The primary objective behind this suggestion from Iran appears to be that India should view any potential U.S. attack against it through the same lens with which it viewed the U.S. military invasion of Iraq in 2003. In 2003, India was governed by the BJP-led NDA government under Prime Minister Vajpayee, which passed a resolution of condemnation in both Houses of Parliament regarding the entry of U.S. forces into Iraq.
At that time, the Congress party—then in the opposition—raised strong objections in the Rajya Sabha regarding the use of the word “deplore” in the English draft of the resolution, arguing that it should be replaced by the word “condemn.” The specific English sentence in question read: “India deplores the American invasion of Iraq.” Subsequently, following a lengthy debate that spanned three days, the Rajya Sabha—much like the Lok Sabha—ultimately passed the resolution of condemnation in Hindi. However, the current global landscape is vastly different from that of 2003, as the U.S. President appears intent on fundamentally altering the entire global order, relying on the strength of his nation’s strategic and economic might.
This is, in turn, exerting an indirect influence on the dynamics of bilateral relations among various nations across the world. Consequently, India must determine its stance only after giving serious and comprehensive consideration to every facet of international politics.
Indeed, since gaining independence, India has consistently refrained from aligning itself with the bloc of any single superpower; thus, a key objective behind the formation of the BRICS grouping—around 2006—was to ensure that, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1990, the world would evolve from a unipolar to a multipolar order in a manner that preserves a balance of power amidst changing global circumstances.
