NEW DELHI: When the use of military force is tied to regime change, wars stop being limited operations and turn into existential battles. By jointly striking Iran and openly backing the fall of Tehran’s rulers, the United States and Israel have set the conflict on its most dangerous trajectory. And a regime fighting for survival has no premium to calibrate, rather it tends to escalate under fire.
Why the timing is very consequential
The timing is as consequential as the attack itself. Strikes came amid renewed nuclear negotiations, reinforcing Tehran’s belief that diplomacy with Washington offers no protection. For Iranian hardliners, the lesson is simple -- talks invite vulnerability. Any future nuclear restraint becomes politically toxic inside Iran for the hardliners.
First and foremost, if the war lingers on and the negotiating table is not laid out sooner rather than later, that collapse of trust carries global consequences. A negotiated freeze on enrichment, intrusive inspections, and de-escalation mechanisms now appear remote in the given circumstances. Instead, the region risks entering a cycle of retaliation without diplomatic off-ramps for the time being.
Strait of Hormuz
The most immediate global danger lies in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of global petroleum flows. For India, the exposure is acute. Nearly half of its monthly crude imports -- about 2.6 million barrels per day -- now pass through this corridor. Even without a full blockade, disruption would send oil prices surging. Insurance premiums would spike. Shipping routes would lengthen. Inflationary pressures would intensify across energy-importing economies. India, which imports over 80% of its crude, would face a widening trade deficit and renewed strain on the rupee.
The shock need not stop there. Global supply chains, already fragile, would absorb higher freight costs. Emerging markets would see capital volatility. Energy-importing nations in Asia and Europe would scramble for alternatives, tightening competition for supply and driving hard bargains.
Danger of a region ringed by US bases
Iran has signalled that US bases are legitimate targets. The American military footprint across Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE, Iraq and Saudi Arabia forms the backbone of US deterrence in the Gulf. Any direct strike on these installations would transform a bilateral confrontation into a regional war.
Retaliation need not be symmetrical. Iran can leverage missile strikes, cyber warfare, proxy militias and maritime disruption. Even calibrated attacks could spook markets and trigger counterstrikes. The real danger of massive escalation is that any single miscalculation, particularly involving American casualties, could cause things to spiral rapidly.
Indian tightrope walk
For New Delhi, the crisis is both strategic and humanitarian. Over 10 million Indians live and work across West Asia. Advisories are a first step; evacuation under fire would be exponentially harder. India must also balance its strategic partnerships, strong ties with Israel, energy dependence on Gulf monarchies, and connectivity interests with Iran. A prolonged war narrows diplomatic space, forcing India into careful neutrality while safeguarding energy flows and diaspora safety.
The larger risk
If regime change becomes an openly declared war aim, the implications extend beyond Iran. Regional states may accelerate military modernization or nuclear hedging. Non-proliferation norms weaken. Great-power rivalry deepens.
Wars launched with maximalist goals rarely end cleanly. If Tehran survives, it claims defiance. If it falls, instability could follow. Either way, the region enters prolonged turbulence.
For India and the world, the warning is really stark-- escalation in West Asia rarely remains contained. When survival is the objective, restraint fades. What begins as a strike can become a systemic shock — to energy markets, regional stability and the fragile global order.