The conflict could test military limits and force countries like India to recalibrate their strategic choices
Published Date – 2 April 2026, 09:41 PM
By Brig Advitya Madan
The ongoing confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran marks a decisive moment in West Asian geopolitics. Far from being an isolated escalation, such a conflict must be understood within a larger strategic continuum — rooted in doctrines of power projection, control over energy routes, and shifting alliance structures.
At the heart of US strategy lies a modern reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine — not confined to the Western Hemisphere anymore, but expanded into a global posture of preventing rival powers from dominating critical regions. The Middle East, with its vast hydrocarbon reserves and maritime chokepoints, remains central. The National Security Strategy of the United States explicitly signals a shift: to reduce direct military burdens while empowering allies, such as Israel, to maintain regional order.
This explains Washington’s enduring priorities — ensuring uninterrupted energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea, preventing the export of terrorism to American soil, and safeguarding Israel’s security. The US–Israel partnership, forged during the Cold War and strengthened after the Six-Day War, rests on shared threat perceptions and complementary strengths: American technological supremacy and Israel’s deep intelligence penetration.
Formidable Regional Power
Yet Iran is no Iraq or Libya. With a population exceeding 9 crore, a large territorial expanse, and a relatively cohesive political system, it represents a formidable regional power. Unlike fragmented states such as Afghanistan or Lebanon, Iran possesses strategic depth and a resilient military-industrial base. Its doctrine of asymmetric warfare — leveraging proxies, missiles, drones, and control over the Strait of Hormuz — compensates for conventional inferiority. In contrast, the US fields unparalleled force projection capabilities, including 11 aircraft carriers and over 13,000 aircraft, while Israel utilises cutting-edge systems such as the F-35 and the Iron Dome.
The roots of current tensions can be traced to the collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action after the US withdrawal in 2018. The deal had imposed strict limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment (capped at 3.67%) and mandated intrusive inspections in exchange for sanctions relief. Its unravelling triggered a spiral of economic pressure and nuclear escalation. Sanctions crippled Iran’s economy — fueling inflation, unemployment, and domestic unrest — while Tehran gradually expanded its nuclear programme and hardened its regional posture.
Existential Threat
Internally, Iran’s theocratic structure — with ultimate authority vested in the Supreme Leader and institutions like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — has ensured regime survival despite pressures. However, economic distress and social restrictions have eroded legitimacy, creating vulnerabilities that external actors may seek to exploit. Reports of covert operations and attempts at regime destabilisation echo past interventions, raising concerns about a “Venezuela-style” playbook.
NATO’s reluctance to join the Iran conflict reflects lessons from past interventions—lack of clear objectives, weak coalition coherence, and domestic political constraints
For Israel, Iran represents an existential threat, particularly due to its nuclear ambitions and support for groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. For the United States, the calculus is broader: securing energy dominance, maintaining leverage over competitors like China, and preserving credibility as a security guarantor. Yet these objectives are not perfectly aligned. While Israel may seek decisive elimination of the Iranian threat, Washington appears wary of a prolonged, high-cost conflict — especially one that could disrupt global energy markets.
The role of alliances further complicates the picture. NATO, founded in 1949, embodies collective security under Article 5. However, its reluctance to be drawn into the Iran conflict reflects lessons from past interventions — lack of clear objectives, weak coalition coherence, and domestic political constraints. Unlike post-9/11 Afghanistan, a war with Iran may not command unanimous support within NATO.
Any conflict would have immediate global repercussions. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil passes, has become a flashpoint. Crude prices have seen sharply upward trend. Shipping routes rerouted, insurance costs have spiked, and supply chains are facing renewed strain.
Tightrope Walk for India
With deep economic ties to both the Gulf and the United States, New Delhi must walk a diplomatic tightrope. Nearly one crore Indians live and work in Gulf countries, sending back substantial remittances. Bilateral trade with the region exceeds $200 billion, and energy dependence remains significant. Projects such as the International North-South Transport Corridor and investments in Iran’s Chabahar port could be jeopardised by instability.
India’s foreign policy tradition — rooted in strategic autonomy and the principle of “no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests” — will be tested. While defence and technology ties with Israel have deepened, and economic engagement with the US has grown, maintaining balanced relations with Iran and the Gulf states remains essential.
Mediation, though tempting, carries risks of failure and limited leverage. The broader geopolitical fallout could be profound. A prolonged conflict might accelerate nuclear proliferation, disrupt China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and reshape alignments within the Gulf Cooperation Council. Questions are already being raised about the reliability of the US security umbrella, potentially pushing regional actors to explore alternative arrangements.
Ultimately, a US–Israel confrontation with Iran would not merely be another Middle Eastern conflict — it would signal a transition in global order. It would test the limits of military power, expose the fragility of economic interdependence, and force countries like India to recalibrate their strategic choices.
In an increasingly multipolar world, the challenge lies not in choosing sides but in navigating complexity with clarity and caution.
(The author is a retired Army officer)
