Iran-Israel conflict a tough balancing act for India: Michael Kugelman

As the Middle East teeters on the brink of wider conflict following the US Air Force’s bombing of Iran’s key nuclear sites, The Federal speaks to Michael Kugelman, Senior Fellow at the Asia Pacific Foundation and South Asia columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.

In this interview, conducted on Sunday (June 22), Kugelman unpacks the implications of America's direct involvement in the Israel-Iran war, Iran’s retaliatory escalation, and the wider diplomatic fallout. He also weighs India’s constrained yet critical position, its historic ties with both nations, and whether New Delhi can go beyond calls for de-escalation.

The conversation also addresses US President Donald Trump’s controversial remarks on mediating Indo-Pak tensions post-Operation Sindoor. Edited excerpts:

How do you interpret the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities? What do you think compelled this move from US President Trump, especially when he recently said he would wait two weeks before deciding anything?

What happened in the last 12 hours is really remarkable. Trump has found himself in a situation he had always wanted to avoid—being pulled into another country's war. He was elected on a platform that emphasised avoiding foreign entanglements and so-called "forever wars."

But this is not the scenario he likely envisioned. He probably thought about China invading Taiwan or something similar. Here, one of America’s closest allies, Israel, initiated a conflict, putting him in a tight spot. I had assumed Trump would try his usual pressure tactics to push Iran toward negotiation, but that clearly didn’t work.

Even though he recently said he'd take two weeks to decide, the strikes were announced suddenly. That two-week remark might have been a ruse to mislead Iran or simply a change of heart—Trump does that often. However, he has consistently said for years that Iran cannot be allowed to possess a nuclear weapon. If talks fail, he’s shown he’s open to using force.

Within the US, there have been criticisms from Congress. Would you say this is another example of Trump’s unilateralism? Or was this a calculated strategy?

That’s a fair question. A large part of Trump’s base voted for him because they opposed US military interventions. His moves in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere were driven by that.

But the administration has framed this operation as a one-off, not as the US entering a war. Trump himself said no further strikes are planned. This mirrors his counterterrorism approach—like when he escalated military action against ISIS in Afghanistan or used the “Mother of All Bombs.” He sees limited, targeted use of force as justified when it aligns with national security goals.

But of course, if Iran or its proxies retaliate against US interests, Trump may be forced to escalate again. That’s the danger here.

Has the ball now shifted to Iran’s court? Does Trump’s next move depend on how Tehran responds?

Absolutely. Trump has stated these were precision strikes on nuclear facilities and nothing more. That’s similar to how India framed Operation Sindoor—targeted and limited, not aimed at civilians or the military.

But much depends on Iran now. Retaliation could drag the US deeper into this crisis. Iran has to respond for domestic political reasons, but its capacity is diminished—Hamas, Hezbollah, and even the Houthis have suffered setbacks. The Houthis even signed a deal with the US recently.

If Iran attacks US bases directly or indirectly, escalation is likely. But I think Iran may lean toward economic retaliation—like shutting the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil trade. That would hurt the US and others, including India.

Iran has announced it's closing the Strait of Hormuz. If that happens, what would the global fallout be?

That would be a serious escalation. The global economy is already under strain due to the Gaza war, Ukraine conflict, and general Middle East instability. This could trigger a situation similar to the 1970s oil crisis.

Everyone has skin in the game here—not just the US, Israel, or Iran. You can expect diplomatic efforts to intensify quickly. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), Saudi Arabia, and possibly China will get involved.

China is especially interesting—it has growing ties with Iran and also a decent relationship with Israel. If the Strait is blocked, the world will need to act fast to avoid a global economic shock.

Given India’s close ties with both Israel and Iran, can it play a role in mediation? Or is that a diplomatic minefield for Prime Minister Modi?

Good question. Unlike Pakistan, which has publicly offered to mediate, India hasn’t made that offer in this case. During the Ukraine conflict, India did offer to mediate. But here, it's been silent.

Pakistan borders Iran and has long-standing relations. A Pakistani delegation, including the Army Chief, visited Iran recently—though some Iranian officials they met were killed in Israeli airstrikes.

Still, Pakistan doesn’t have real leverage. Iran and Pakistan had a short military clash last year. And despite the recent thaw between Saudi Arabia and Iran, Pakistan still operates under its alliance with Saudi Arabia. Also, Pakistan nominating Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize right before the strikes won’t go down well in Tehran.

As for India, it has excellent ties with both countries but has leaned more toward Israel in recent years. The arms trade has increased 30-fold in the last decade. That could make Iran wary of seeing India as a neutral mediator.

India values its relations with Iran—Chabahar Port, for instance—but hasn’t publicly offered to mediate, likely due to its aversion to third-party mediation in its own conflicts. Right now, India's top priority is evacuating nationals from the region.

But hasn’t India historically been proud of its non-aligned stance? Does Modi’s foreign policy complicate that image now?

Yes, that’s a key point. India still follows a policy of strategic autonomy. But it’s being tested—by the Russia-Ukraine war, the Gaza conflict, and now this.

Despite these challenges, India has kept good ties with all sides: Russia, Ukraine, the US, Iran, and Israel. It publicly supports Palestine and continues humanitarian aid there, even as it deepens military cooperation with Israel.

The deeper alignment with Israel is significant, especially since Israel was among the few countries that backed India during the Operation Sindoor conflict with Pakistan. Even Taiwan and the Taliban backed India—that’s quite the trio.

India didn’t sign the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) statement condemning Israeli strikes, signaling its sympathy with Israeli security concerns. That’s a balancing act—supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while avoiding endorsement of an extended war that could threaten India’s economic interests.

So does this balancing act mean India’s strategic autonomy is weakening, or is it just evolving?

I think it’s evolving. Strategic autonomy isn’t going away—it’s just adapting to new geopolitical realities.

India now sees itself as a bridge between the Global South and the developed world. During its G20 presidency, it emphasized issues important to both groups. It’s made some progress there.

Still, managing ties with Iran, Israel, the US, and the broader region amid such volatility is difficult. India doesn’t want to get caught in a prolonged conflict. Its economic interests—especially with oil trade routes at risk—are too vital.

Finally, what about China’s role if the situation escalates further?

China will certainly get involved if the conflict deepens. It has cultivated strong ties with Iran and maintained a working relationship with Israel.

If Iran retaliates against the US and the latter gets further entangled, China could emerge as a key diplomatic player. It would affect its Belt and Road interests, energy security, and global trade routes.

This is not just a US-Iran-Israel problem anymore. It's a global issue now.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.