For India, preparedness and balance, not rhetoric, will shape resilience in the months ahead
Published Date – 6 March 2026, 10:28 PM
By Brig Advitya Madan (retd)
What we are witnessing today is not merely a military confrontation between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other. It is equally a war of narratives — a conflict in which perception management, strategic messaging and psychological operations are as critical as missiles and drones.
In modern warfare, information dominance shapes the battlefield. Claims, counterclaims and calibrated leaks are deployed to mould global opinion, reassure domestic constituencies, and deter adversaries. Recent events illustrate this clearly.
Iran claimed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s operations room had been hit and that three F-15 fighter jets were shot down by Iranian air defences. Both claims were later proven false; Netanyahu spoke to international media, visibly unharmed, and regional authorities acknowledged that one aircraft incident was friendly fire. On the American side, President Donald Trump described the strike on Iranian nuclear infrastructure as “pre-emptive.”
Pre-emption Doctrine
Yet classical pre-emption doctrine involves striking imminent launch capabilities — missile silos, drone bases, command-and-control nodes — not political centres of gravity such as a supreme leader’s residence. Moreover, a genuinely pre-emptive strike is timed to neutralise a threat at the last possible moment, not advanced for opportunistic reasons.
Reports indicate the attack was launched when US intelligence confirmed that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was meeting senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders. The result was the reported elimination of 48 IRGC personnel and senior political figures in one blow. That suggests a decapitation strategy rather than defensive pre-emption.
Similarly, after the June 25 strikes on Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, Iran reportedly retained stockpiles of 60% enriched uranium. Yet Washington declared the nuclear infrastructure “obliterated.” Such language reflects strategic messaging, not technical precision. Wars are meticulously costed in money, casualties and time; rhetoric often exceeds operational reality.
A striking revelation is that hostilities escalated not after a breakdown in talks but after a breakthrough. On February 28, Oman, which has long served as a discreet mediator, publicly announced progress in negotiations. Iran had reportedly agreed to reduce its stockpile to zero, convert its 60% enriched uranium into irreversible fuel and permit American inspectors access to nuclear facilities — commitments arguably stricter than those under the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
The US, however, introduced new demands, including surrendering enriched uranium and scaling back ballistic missile capabilities. Iran rejected them. If accurate, it suggests that the confrontation may have been pre-planned, with shifting goalposts used to justify escalation.
Trump Miscalculates
Washington appears to have miscalculated on three fronts. First, it may have anticipated swift regime change, assuming internal unrest would follow the strikes. That has not occurred. In Iran’s case, change, if any, is more likely to be within the system rather than to the system. Ayatollah Khamenei had been in power for nearly five decades; such longevity is impossible in a large, historically conscious civilisation without a core base of support.
Second, the US underestimated the scale and reach of Iranian retaliation, including attacks on its naval assets such as the USS Abraham Lincoln. Third, it did not anticipate a protracted war of attrition. Unlike short, swift interventions elsewhere, this theatre presents the prospect of sustained escalation.
Iran’s internal architecture also complicates any regime-change calculus. Power is layered across an interim leadership council comprising the president, chief justice, deputy speaker and a Guardian Council member; the Supreme National Security Council; the IRGC; the Basij militia; the Quds Force; the Assembly of Experts; and the Guardian Council. Dismantling such a system requires boots on the ground.
Yet, US domestic politics — especially sensitivity to returning body bags and the approach of mid-term elections in November 2026 — constrain large-scale ground intervention. American public opinion is acutely responsive to attacks on US cities and military casualties. The prospect of proxy retaliation on US soil cannot be discounted.
Different Goals
The war aims of the US and Israel, though aligned tactically, are not identical. For Washington, limiting Russian and Chinese influence in West Asia and maintaining leverage over global oil markets are central objectives. For Israel, the goal is existential — eliminating the perceived Iranian nuclear, missile and drone threat and consolidating strategic primacy in the region.
Iran, for its part, has sought to widen the battlefield. By targeting civilian and energy infrastructure in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman — and blocking the Strait of Hormuz — Tehran is attempting to impose the cost of war on the entire region and, by extension, the world. Strikes on facilities such as the Aramco complex in Saudi Arabia or commercial hubs in Dubai aim to signal that US security guarantees cannot shield Gulf states.
Conflicts in West Asia rarely stay contained. They ripple across oil markets, sea lanes, diasporas and geopolitical alignments — carrying significant implications for India’s energy security and regional diplomacy
In my assessment, this is a strategic overreach. Iran has opened multiple fronts despite constraints: missile and drone production facilities have reportedly been hit, and its economy remains fragile. Concentrating force against primary adversaries — Israel and US bases — might have been more sustainable.
Iran’s arsenal is formidable. Estimates suggest thousands of advanced missiles, including hypersonic variants, and tens of thousands of drones. Its strategy relies on saturation — firing waves of missiles and drone swarms to overwhelm layered air defence systems. Yet stockpiles are finite. Once depleted, the conflict risks degenerating into prolonged attrition, insurgency and internal instability.
Impact on India
For India, the most immediate concern is the Strait of Hormuz. At its narrowest navigable point, the strait is roughly 33 km wide, with two shipping lanes each about 2 km across. Around 20% of global oil supply — nearly 20 million barrels per day — transits through this chokepoint. Even with alternative pipelines, only a fraction can bypass it.
India imports about 88% of its crude oil needs and is the world’s third-largest consumer. A significant portion of its Gulf imports — including from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman — passes through Hormuz.
India’s crude inventory covers roughly ten days, supplemented by strategic petroleum reserves. Additional flexibility comes from diversification — increased purchases from Russia, the United States, West Africa and Latin America, as well as floating storage in the Indian Ocean. Brent crude, the global benchmark named after a North Sea oilfield, could climb to $100 if the strait is disrupted. Each one-dollar increase reportedly adds billions to India’s annual import bill. Liquefied natural gas shipments from Qatar also move through Hormuz, and India does not maintain large strategic LNG or LPG reserves, making it more vulnerable on the gas front.
Human Dimension
Beyond energy lies the human dimension. Nearly nine million Indians reside in Gulf countries — 3.5 million in the UAE, 2.5 million in Saudi Arabia, and significant numbers in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. Any regional conflagration would necessitate evacuation planning and post-return employment management. India must, therefore, walk a diplomatic tightrope — balancing ties with Israel, engagement with Shia-majority Iran, and partnerships with Sunni Gulf states — while preserving strategic autonomy. In such a volatile environment, strategic restraint remains India’s most prudent course.
A wait-and-watch approach, backed by energy diversification and calibrated diplomacy, is essential. Wars in West Asia rarely remain contained. They ripple outward — through oil prices, sea lanes, diasporas and geopolitical alignments. For India, preparedness and balance, not rhetoric, will determine resilience in the months ahead.
(The author is a retired Army officer)