Discuss how the 2026 US–Israel–Iran conflict has tested India's strategy of balancing its relations with Iran, Israel and the Gulf monarchies.

India's West Asia policy rests on de-hyphenation, which means keeping separate ties with each side. Iran matters for connectivity, Israel for defence and technology, and the Gulf monarchies for energy, the diaspora and investment. The US–Israel strikes on Iran from February 2026, and Iran's retaliation against Gulf states, put these separate tracks in direct conflict with each other.

How the conflict tested the balance

• Legal dilemma: The UN Secretary-General cited Article 2(4) of the UN Charter against the US–Israeli use of force. He also condemned Iran's strikes on Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and other states [1]. Iran claimed the right of self-defence under Article 51 [2]. Endorsing either side risked alienating a key partner.
• Gulf hosts in the line of fire: Iran called hostile bases in the region legitimate military objectives [2]. This exposed India's largest energy and diaspora partners to attack.
• Energy shock: India imports about 60% of its LPG, and about 90% of that passes through Hormuz [3]. An April shortfall of 25–30% forced rationing that favoured fertiliser plants over refineries [4].
• Diaspora: About 1 crore Indians live in the GCC [5]. More than 3,75,000 had returned home, and some had died in attacks [6].
• Shrinking strategic space: A Saudi–Türkiye–Pakistan grouping is now talking to Tehran about regional security. India's rival is part of that conversation and India is not.

How India responded

• Principled neutrality: India called for restraint, respect for sovereignty and civilian safety [7]. It welcomed the ceasefire and asked for free navigation through Hormuz [5], and it opposed attacks on energy infrastructure [6].
• Diversification: India now buys crude from about 40 countries, and about 70% of it avoids Hormuz [3]. Domestic LPG output rose by more than 60% [4].
• Institutional preparedness: An Inter-Group of Ministers led by the Defence Minister reviewed India's preparedness [8].

Gaps that remain

• LPG still depends heavily on Hormuz. Evacuation and energy planning are reactive, set up only when a crisis hits.

India's balancing held, since no partner was lost, but it came at a real cost to energy supplies and the diaspora. Turning crisis measures into permanent ones would help: long-term LPG contracts outside the Gulf, more storage and a standing IGoM. India should also openly back regional diplomacy in line with Article 2(4) and SDG 16. Together these steps would make strategic autonomy active rather than reactive.