The US-Israeli strike on February 28, 2026, that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is heavily debated internationally, including in India. While proponents argue it was a justified act of self-defence to prevent regional threats, critics cite it as an act of aggression that violates the UN Charter and triggers dangerous instability. The assassination has led to severe consequences, including Iranian retaliation against US bases and allies, further endangering stability in the region.

In a telephone conversation with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu on March 2, PM Modi expressed deep concern over the regional situation and underscored that “the safety of civilians must remain the utmost priority,” while calling for an early cessation of hostilities. However, India has not taken a direct, explicit public position condemning targeted killings by Israel. Instead, the Indian government has maintained a policy of strategic silence or nuanced, balanced statements on such specific incidents, while advocating for dialogue, diplomacy, and the safety of civilians in the broader conflict.

India has argued that its approach is to steer clear of direct military involvement and rhetorical excess, focusing on “quiet firmness” to protect its strategic, economic, and human interests. Instead of joining Western or regional blocs in condemning Iran, India has maintained “strategic silence” on specific provocations to keep channels of communication open. India has avoided taking sides, a hallmark of its foreign policy, allowing it to navigate the crisis independently. India’s official stance emphasises the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, advocating for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy rather than punitive actions. Despite being part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), India has avoided aligning with blocs that favour one side, choosing a ” calibrated diplomacy instead.”

Not surprisingly, the Indian government’s rather muted response to the US-Israeli attacks on Iran, including the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has faced significant criticism from opposition parties and some analysts, who describe it as timid, fearful, and a departure from the nation’s tradition of non-alignment. Critics argue the silence signals a strategic pivot toward the US-Israel axis, potentially harming India’s interests, regional credibility and energy security.

While the Indian government has maintained what it sees as a balanced diplomatic stance, the opposition parties have criticised it for not condemning the strikes, calling it an “abdication” of India’s voice in global affairs. The shift is seen by them as damaging to India’s long-term relations with Iran and its ability to act as a neutral party in regional conflicts. Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Israel shortly before the attacks was interpreted by some opposition leaders as providing tacit approval, making the government appear complicit. Concerns were raised that the conflict could lead to higher oil prices and hurt the Indian economy, which has already seen a reduction in oil imports from Iran due to US pressure.

The Indian government has argued that its approach to the situation resulting from the attacks by the US and Israel on Iran is based on strategic autonomy and pragmatic, interests-based diplomacy. Strategic autonomy is defined as making independent decisions in the national interest, rather than aligning with any specific bloc, or, in this case, taking sides in a foreign conflict. India views strategic autonomy as a necessity for sovereignty and a way to avoid getting caught in zero-sum, bloc-based politics. New Delhi’s stance is a deliberate, pragmatic approach to avoid directly criticising key strategic partners—the US and Israel— during a volatile conflict.

Clearly, India’s policy is shaped by a “hard reading” of its national interests. Foremost among these is diaspora protection. With over nine million Indian citizens in the Gulf region, India’s primary concern is their safety, leading to proactive evacuations and advisories rather than public condemnation of either side. Energy security and economic interests are also important factors. With two-thirds of India’s crude oil transiting the Strait of Hormuz, maintaining stability is paramount. India has navigated this by quietly engaging with Washington for exemptions while maintaining diplomatic dialogue with Tehran. As US-Israel attacks on Iran intensified, India focused on keeping shipping routes secure and protecting Indian sailors and citizens, calling for dialogue without directly condemning Iran.

India’s cautious stand during the ongoing conflict—prioritising diplomacy, de-escalation, and safeguarding its energy security and diaspora—could strain its relationship with Tehran. While calling for restraint, India’s perceived alignment with US-Israeli interests and “silent” response to recent Iranian leadership losses risk deepening distrust, reducing strategic cooperation, and endangering projects like Chabahar. India’s deepening, multifaceted strategic partnership with Israel—including defence cooperation—could create friction with Tehran, particularly as regional tensions escalate.

Summing up, the Indian government has chosen to follow a path of “calculated neutrality” or “strategic balance,” rather than taking a strong, public, and one-sided stand. While opposition parties in India have called for a more explicit condemnation of the actions, the government has prioritized safety of Indians in the Gulf region, energy security and maintaining ties with all parties to preserve its strategic flexibility in a chaotic Middle East. Overall, India’s official stance avoids direct condemnation of the US and Israel’s targeted actions while emphasising a general need for peace and protection of civilians. Whether this stance is viewed as strategic autonomy or a “abdication of responsibility” depends on the perspective. Ultimately, India’s approach is designed to ensure it does not get “subordinated” into a rigid block, allowing it to act in its own interest by avoiding entanglement in a wider regional war.

END OF ARTICLE