Washington’s new assault on Tehran ignores its resilience, central position, and the global economic risks of another failed experiment
The war that the US and Israel have unleashed against Iran demonstrates that Washington has not learned the right lessons from the results of its past regime change policies in the Middle East, largely conducted in an attempt to ensure Israel’s long-term security.
The US military interventions to bring about regime change have left in their wake internal strife, ethnic divisions, political and economic instability, the rise of Islamic groups, terrorism, the persecution of minorities, and refugee flows in the targeted countries. This was particularly the case with Iraq and Syria.
Afghanistan and Libya were targeted not with the objective of Israel’s security but as part of the so-called war on terror, aiming to secure control over the politics of this wider region, including its resources, and with the goal of eroding Russia’s influence in this part of the world.
Any strategy of regime change in Iran with the balkanization of the country in mind would have disastrous consequences for the region and beyond.
Middle East sits atop massive oil and gas resources, and therefore the region is critical for running the wheels of the global economy. War in the region is inherently de-stabilizing for the economies of all countries.
Territorial ambitions, geopolitical rivalries, and insecurities of any set of countries should not disregard the interests of the global community as a whole. If the UN Charter were respected and the UN Security Council functioned effectively, then war as a choice or driven solely by the security interests of any particular country could be prevented.
Iran is unlike the Gulf states in terms of the size of and country and its population, as well as its military capacity. It has highly educated people. The scientific and technological base of the country is strong. It is not monarchical. It may not fit the description of Western democracies, but it has democratic processes unique to it. It has layered state structures that provide resilience to the polity. This includes military structures. The country has been under draconian Western sanctions but it has weathered them, and this has given the country staying power under pressure. Its religious ideological base gives it the capacity to withstand difficulties. On top of all this, it dominates geographically the Strait of Hormuz, which is a critical chokepoint for the movement of oil and gas from this richly endowed region.
Miscalculation in Iran
In this broad context, the US-Israeli aggression against Iran can be seen as a dramatic misjudgment. Israel has long felt an existential threat from Iran and has lobbied with the US for military action to eliminate its nuclear program, not to mention the regime itself.
The Jewish lobby in the US, acknowledged to be very powerful, has pushed this goal but earlier US presidents have resisted this pressure. Barack Obama, in fact, negotiated the JCPOA as a solution to the nuclear question. Donald Trump, despite all his talk about his peace initiatives entitling him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, is the first US president that took the decision to militarily intervene directly in June 2025 by attacking Iran’s nuclear sites, and has followed in February this year by launching a major and wider military operation against the country.
Trump’s declared objectives for launching this war have changed in their enunciation. In June 2025, he announced that Iran’s nuclear program had been obliterated. Nevertheless, he engaged Iran in negotiations over its nuclear program in the weeks leading up to the current conflict, using Oman as a mediator. Simultaneously, he positioned an “armada” of US forces close to Iran for military action, which suggested that his goal went beyond the nuclear question.
The US has always wanted to curb Iran’s missile program as well as its regional role in order to limit its capacity to hit Israel, as was demonstrated during the 12-day conflict in June 2025. Another aim for the US was to force Iran to end its support for the Islamic groups that threaten Israel’s security such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
If Washington reasoned that killing the supreme leader and top military and intelligence officials would lead to the collapse of the regime, that strategy has failed. In fact, in June 2025, Trump had announced that the US knew the exact location of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and could take him out if needed. Trump may have felt that his success in Venezuela in abducting President Nicolas Maduro through a limited military operation and replacing him with the country’s pliant vice-president could be replicated in Iran, but that strategy has failed. Trump did say that regime change in Iran was not an objective, but the US president is known for making contradictory statements. He is now bombing Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure and giving ominous warnings that Iran will be destroyed as a country. The US is claiming that 6,000 targets in Iran have been hit so far. The Tomahawk missile attack on an Iranian school that killed 165 girls and injured many others has led to a major backlash at home and abroad.
Trump’s expectation of a quick victory has been belied. His rhetoric remains brutal and callous. Trump has sought Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” which theoretically rules out any negotiation. Talk has surfaced about putting US boots on the ground, which would be unpopular with Trump’s base as it would contradict his campaign narrative that the US will no longer be involved in “forever wars.” After classified Senate briefings, some US lawmakers have publicly expressed dismay that the Trump administration’s objectives in Iran are unclear and that they have no clue about the end game there.
Strait of Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz is a trump card in Iran’s hands. Even before Iran could block maritime traffic through the strait, insurance companies effectively disrupted the oil traffic by refusing cover. With 20% of global oil supplies passing through the strait, the current disruption has resulted in oil prices shooting up to over $100 per barrel.
The ironic result is that the US has announced lifting the sanctions on Russian oil and granting India a 30-day waiver to buy Russian oil with the declared intention of avoiding a spike in oil prices. This is a quick U-turn from a previous policy that placed a 25% punitive tariff imposed on New Delhi for buying Russian oil and fueling “Putin’s war machine,” as Trump administration officials have put it. There is little doubt that this a self-serving move intended to control the rise in gasoline prices for US consumers, as that could have serious electoral consequences for the Republican Party in the November midterm elections to the US Congress.
The Biden administration had publicly encouraged India to buy Russian oil to keep the oil price stable, a policy that Trump had castigated but has now appropriated. Russia is a big gainer politically and economically, as this has not only demonstrated that Russian oil cannot be realistically excluded from the international market, but has also placed Europe, which has pursued a policy of breaking all energy relations with Russia, in an untenable situation. The EU has opposed the lifting of temporary sanctions on Russian oil.
The view from New Delhi
India has been put in a very difficult position by this aggression against Iran. We have almost 10 million Indians residing in the Gulf countries. Much of India’s oil and gas imports come from the region: 35% to 50% of its crude oil imports, 90% of its LPG imports, and 42% of its LNG imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. About 38% (amounting to $45 billion) of Indian’s total remittances of $135 billion in FY 2025 came from this region, with the largest percentage coming from the UAE. India has signed FTAs with the UAE and Oman, and is negotiating one with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as a whole.
The UAE has become the hub of India’s expansive cooperation plans with this region in the frontier areas of technology such as AI, super computers, green energy, space, digital embassies, and small modular reactors. This is in the perspective of marrying Indian talented manpower and the investment potential available in the Gulf countries.
However, the business and financial model, coupled with quality of life and safety that the Gulf countries offer, could be seriously jeopardized if the war is prolonged, the Iranian attacks on US bases and civilian targets in the countries continue, infrastructure is damaged, and the Strait of Hormuz remains either blocked or the traffic through it is disrupted. For New Delhi this will be a big blow.
India has strong ties with the US and Israel as well as with the Gulf countries. Iran is an important neighbor, and India has strategic equities in Iran, be it access to Afghanistan and Central Asia through Chabahar port and connectivity to Russia through the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-km multi-modal network connecting India, Iran, Russia, and Central Asia via ship, rail, and road, not to mention our shared membership of BRICS and the SCO.
India has kept its channels with Iran open, with Iranian presidents visiting India and, in recent years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well as the defense and foreign ministers visiting Iran. The sinking of an Iranian ship off Sri Lanka’s coast by a US submarine in the first week of the conflict raised serious concerns in New Delhi. The vessel was one of three Iranian ships that took part in India’s biennial MILAN 2026 naval exercise. India has a reason to be vexed not only about the human cost of the incident, but also about what is seen as the geopolitical insensitivity of the US action.
Our stakes in a ceasefire and a return to dialogue and diplomacy in the region are very high.