Maximum Restraint Diplomacy: Can India Sustain Tightrope Walk On Iran Conflict?

On the face of it, India’s response to the grim situation playing out across the Persian Gulf cannot be faulted. New Delhi is doing the perfect balancing act to secure its interests in the region. Yet what it says and what it does does not match, though its statements are carefully and cleverly worded to ensure that no one can point an accusing finger.

``At the very outset, the government had issued a statement on 28 February expressing its deep concern and urging all sides to exercise restraint, avoid escalation and prioritise the safety of civilians. We believed and continue to believe that dialogue and diplomacy should be pursued to de-escalate tensions and address underlying issues. Sir, it is also imperative that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states in the region be respected," foreign minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said in the Rajya Sabha on Monday.

While officially calling for "maximum restraint", New Delhi's actual stance reveals a far more complex and contradictory strategy, one that prioritises strategic partnerships with the US and Israel while attempting to maintain its traditional non-aligned posture, a balancing act that the government had long perfected. Iran is well aware of New Delhi’s shifting stance. Nor had Iran failed to note that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Israel, addressing the Knesset and celebrating the India-Israel relationship, just 48 hours before the deadly strikes on Iran by Israel and the US.

Jaishankar’s statement again did not condemn the killing of Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme leader and head of state. Nor did New Delhi outrighlty condemn the kidnap and capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro earlier. Nor question the US and Israel for ``...a violation of international law, the UN Charter prohibiting wars of aggression or preventive attacks in the absence of clear and compelling evidence of an urgent security threat," as Philip Golub, professor of International Studies in the American University in Paris, points out.

There was radio silence on the killing of the Iranian leader and members of his family. Five days after the event India reacted. Not by issuing a statement but with foreign secretary Vikram Misri going to the Iranian embassy in the capital to sign the condolence book. The PM did not. Nor did Jaishankar or any other senior minister.

India’s interests in the Gulf region which Delhi considers as its ``extended neighbourhood" are vast. Over nine million Indian nationals live and work across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, sending back valuable foreign exchange reserves.

India gets nearly 35 per cent of its crude oil and 70 per cent of its LNG imports from the region. The GCC countries are also a major trade partner, and India does business of almost USD 200 billion annually. A prolonged war which is now affecting the entire region will hit India hard.

Earlier Iran was also a major supplier of oil to India. In fact during the first Trump term, India had stopped lifting Iranian oil because of secondary sanctions announced by Washington. China had however continued to import Iranian oil though to avoid US sanctions, the oil was relabelled as coming from a third country, like Malaysia or Indonesia. China buys nearly 1.38 million barrels per day of Iranian crude.

At the same time New Delhi has washed its hands off Iran’s Chabahar project that at one time was touted as a major strategic asset. So long as the US exempted India from sanctions on Chabahar, New Delhi kept at it, but has now without publicly saying much has backed off.

The conflict's expansion into the Indian Ocean has further complicated matters for the government. India’s timid response to the US sinking an Iranian warship the IRIS Dena on the Indian Ocean, off the Sri Lankan coast, killing some 80 Iranian sailors. Sri Lanka’s navy did its best to rescue some 30 or so sailors from the ship. The Indian Navy issued a statement some 24 hours later on the fate of the warship, merely noting the incident. There was no attempt at rescue of the sailor onboard. The IRIS Dena was returning home after attending a fleet review called by the Indian Navy in November. It was a "guest of India’s navy" yet there was no condemnation of the US action, right in India's backyard.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had pointed to the significance of the Indian Ocean in his speech on the occasion. "The Indian Navy is the guardian of the Indian Ocean," he then said, to loud, proud chants of "Long Live Mother India" from his audience,’’ Al Jazeera noted. Yet India kept its head down and did nothing.

Today Jaishankar told the Rajya Sabha "Sir, the House will also be interested in the issue of an Iranian vessel that is currently docked in Kochi. The Iranian side requested permission on 28 February for three ships in the region to dock at our ports. This was accorded on 01 March. IRIS LAVAN actually docked on 04 March in Kochi. The crew is currently in Indian naval facilities. We believe that this was the right thing to do and the Iranian Foreign Minister has expressed his country’s thanks for this humane gesture."

There is a bit of confusion here, as Jaishankar had said at the Raisina dialogue, a few days ago that one Iranian ship had asked for permission to dock." We got a message from the Iranian side that one of the ships, presumably closest to our borders at that point, wanted to come into our port." So far there is no clarity on this.

The war in Iran and the escalation of the conflict puts India in a spot. While it continues to maintain a neutral stand, calling for de-escalation and is doing a tightrope walk between the two sides in the conflict, its heart and its interests appear to be with the US-Israel combination. India's ability to navigate these treacherous slopes without sacrificing either its economic interests or its strategic autonomy remains to be seen.