Weapons over Welfare: India’s Calculated Betrayal of Iran

While the Middle East descended into chaos after Israel’s surprise attacks on Iranian territory, one nation’s behavior has been notable for its brazen duplicity: India. Long used to being the voice of peace and non-alignment, India has embarked on a course that sharply diverges from its proclaimed foreign policy principles. As the world witnessed with concern missiles crossing Tel Aviv and Tehran, the calculated reluctance of India and its eventual leaning in favor of Israel exposed the deep double standards in its foreign policy. The double-faced diplomacy has not just backstabbed Iran, a nation that India considers a strategic partner, but also betrayed India’s increasing alignment with militarism and unilateralism, particularly if it is to do so at its transactional convenience.

The ongoing Iran-Israel war, which commenced on June 13 with Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear sites and residences of top scientists, has already resulted in hundreds of fatalities. Iran’s retaliatory missile attack further intensified the conflict. Official reports indicate that a minimum of 639 Iranians have been killed and more than 1,329 wounded in the Israeli attacks, with Iranian strikes reported to have killed 24 and injured hundreds in Israel. In the midst of this destruction, nations such as China, Japan, Pakistan, and Indonesia stood on firm moral and legal grounds by condemning Israel’s aggression. India, on the other hand, not only refrained from condemning Israel but was also the sole member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) to reject a collective statement condemning the Israeli attack. This action does not indicate anything less than neutrality—it is more of an implied endorsement of Israel’s actions.

India’s Ministry of External Affairs made a generic and vacuous plea, urging both sides to “avoid any escalatory steps” and engage in dialogue. But the experts are not fooled. India’s former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Oman, Talmiz Ahmad, reduced the statement to “low-key” and effectively symbolic, observing that India has had no real interest in regional diplomacy. Ahmad cautioned that this silence is particularly perilous given the region’s proximity and the sizeable Indian diaspora residing there. In fact, more than 9 million Indians live and work in West Asia, and India’s energy security hinges considerably on the region. Under such circumstances, India’s reluctance to denounce a war-inducing act of aggression appears not merely diplomatically empty but also strategically irresponsible.

There is also a deeper paradox at work. India continues to develop its strategic relationship with Iran by investing in major infrastructure projects such as the $370 million Chabahar port project aimed at increasing trade routes to Central Asia and Afghanistan. It also has educational and cultural exchanges, with more than 10,000 Indian students currently studying in Iran. But when Iran was subject to an unprecedented military attack, India shed all moral pretensions. Rather than coming to the defense of a so-called strategic ally under siege, India gave top priority to evacuating its citizens while remaining conspicuously mum regarding the source of the crisis: Israel’s initial attack. This inconsistency speaks volumes about a glaring reality—India’s “strategic partnership” with Iran is opportunistic at best and thoroughly compromised by its uncritical alignment with Israel.

A primary explanation for this change comes in the shape of increasing military cooperation between India and Israel. India has bought $2.9 billion worth of arms from Israel in the last ten years, making it the biggest consumer of Israeli military equipment. Some of these are advanced missile systems, drones, radar systems, and intelligence technologies, many of which are technologically advanced through experience-based learning from Israel’s battles in Palestine and Lebanon. It is little wonder then that India decided to protect Israel from condemnation given the intensity of their defense partnership. But all this military cooperation is at the expense of credibility, especially for a nation that previously asserted the values of international law and peaceful existence.

Even within India, strong voices have sounded warning against this change. N. Sai Balaji, a well-respected foreign policy analyst in Delhi, accused the government of “taking sides clearly” by not condemning Israel’s aggression. He underscored that India’s silence threatens not just regional peace but also the livelihoods of Indians in millions working in West Asia and the remittances they send to India. Balaji also noted that energy imports from the region are a lifeline for India’s economy, and any extended conflict can badly disrupt its lifeblood.

Sudheendra Kulkarni, a former counsellor of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke in this same manner. He described the position of the Modi government as a treacherous betrayal of the pro-peace position of India in the foreign policy. Kulkarni quoted Article 51 of UN Charter aside to stress the point that Israel is the aggressor and that Iran serves to defend itself with all rights under law. To sit quiet in presence of such slap-dash aggression, he argued, is not merely morally unsound but diplomatically disastrous, to India.

What aggravates India’s attitude further is its selective enforcement of international norms. When disputes erupt in arenas where Indian interests are not immediately at stake, India will pride itself on peace, dialogue, and respect for sovereignty. But when its defense contracts, ideological predispositions, or geopolitical competitions are on the line, those same norms are disregarded. This trend was noticed previously in India’s vacillating attitude towards the Russia-Ukraine conflict and now, more openly, in its handling of the Iran-Israel crisis. By not criticizing Israel’s aggression, India not only insulted Iran but also made its willingness to align itself with power at the expense of principle evident.

The present crisis has proven that India is ready to sacrifice long-standing regional ties to appease military allies and economic patrons. Though Delhi boasts of having balanced relations in West Asia, its deeds are louder than words. When there is peace, India cajoles Iran for ports and pipelines. But at war time, it tilts towards Israel for drones and defense technology. This isn’t balance—this is protection. And in a delicate part of the world such as the Middle East, where loyalties are tried in fire, India has opted for expediency over rectitude.

As the dust settles over the Iran-Israel conflict, the global community will remember who stood for justice, who stayed silent, and who switched sides. India’s double standards have not gone unnoticed. For Iran, and indeed for much of the Muslim world, Delhi’s betrayal is now a matter of record. Strategic partnerships are built not just on trade or arms, but on trust. And trust, once broken in the time of war, is not easily restored.