6 min readMar 6, 2026 06:10 AM IST First published on: Mar 6, 2026 at 06:10 AM ISTAs the war ignited by the missiles striking Tehran on February 28 now enters its seventh day, it’s clear that it has shattered a fragile regional order and plunged the global economy into a state of high-voltage uncertainty. For India, a country whose energy security and millions of citizens are inextricably linked to the stability of the Gulf, this is not “foreign news”. It is a direct threat to our national interests and our aspirations for growth and development.Analysts have been struggling to discern a coherent logic for this conflict. The tenets of international law don’t justify it: The bedrock of the UN Charter is respect for the sovereignty of states and the inviolability of their borders; the use of force is prohibited. There are narrow exceptions for self-defence and Security Council authorisation, yet neither condition has been met. To claim “pre-emptive self-defence” against a nation that was actively engaged in the most promising diplomatic negotiations in a decade is a legal stretch. Compounding this violation is the precisely conducted elimination of the heart of the Iranian leadership, shattering the unwritten but long-respected convention that heads of state and government are never militarily targeted in warfare. By discarding this norm, the US and Israel have not only disregarded convention but risked chaos. “I got him before he got me,” President Donald Trump said of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Any future outcome risks being marinated in blood feuds rather than statesmanship.AdvertisementThe irony of “Epic Fury” is that its proclaimed objective — denying Iran a nuclear weapon — had, according to Omani mediators, already been achieved through ongoing diplomatic negotiations. Just days before the strikes, significant progress had been reported in Geneva, with Iran nearing a deal to abjure nuclear weapons, freeze enrichment and hold zero stockpiles of weapons-grade material, in exchange for structured sanctions relief. By choosing the battlefield over the boardroom, the US and Israel have signalled that diplomacy is a dispensable tool to the overarching goal of regime change.However, history remains a harsh teacher: Regime change is rarely, if ever, achievable from the air. While modern weaponry may possess the precision to destroy infrastructure, it cannot bomb a new government into existence. Destroying a leadership from the air is one thing, building an alternative in a country of 88 million people quite another. The more likely result is either regime reassertion under new personalities (none of whom seems likely to turn out to be an obliging Iranian version of Venezuela’s Delcy Rodriguez) or, worse, a failed-state scenario on a massive scale, creating a power vacuum far more dangerous than the regime it sought to replace.The consequences of this action are already bleeding across borders. Iranian retaliation has not been confined to the primary aggressors; strikes have hit neighbouring countries that were not overtly hostile to Tehran. These actions, going beyond US bases, have caused tragic casualties among the local and foreign residents of those nations, effectively dragging the entire region into a war they did not seek. We now face the worrying prospect of further indiscriminate retaliation by Iran and its proxies against American interests and civilians anywhere in the world. When a regime feels survival is at stake, the distinction between military and civilian targets vanishes.AdvertisementThe economic toll is equally staggering. The closure of regional airspace and the Strait of Hormuz have sent shockwaves through global markets. As a significant portion of the world’s seaborne oil passes through this choke point, prices have spiked — one hopes temporarily — from the pre-war $65 towards $83 per barrel, and insurance premia are soaring. Qatar has declared force majeure and suspended its gas shipments, affecting factories around the world. Iran currently appears intent on widening the theatre of conflict in order to disrupt the Middle East’s civil aviation hubs and stall the movement of oil and gas from the region, calculating that the economic shock, plus the damage wreaked on the “safe haven” reputation of its thriving neighbours, could persuade Washington to rein in the fighting.Uncomfortable questions persist about the strategic logic of unleashing war. Was this gamble for regime change inspired by a desire to create a unipolar West Asia, integrating currently sanctioned Iranian oil into world markets under a more friendly government? Such a theory is plausible, given that the stated reason, nuclear weapons, had already been settled at the negotiating table, and because regime change would achieve a number of broader geostrategic objectives: Reduce Russia’s energy leverage over Europe and dilute China’s clout in the region by pulling Iran and its energy resources into the West’s orbit. But the escalation may not unfold as the United States and Israel expect, and the resulting instability is likely to inflict significant damage on every actor involved.you may likeIran is estimated to have enough ballistic missiles for a couple of weeks of fighting, though half its missile launchers are said to have been destroyed and the remainder are not easy to hide from the “eyes in the sky” of modern technology. How much longer the US and Israel can sustain their barrage is uncertain, but one clue is that President Trump speaks of ending the war in four to five weeks. The threat of American “boots on the ground” seems a bluff, to signal determination rather than real intent. America may accept a solution short of regime change — perhaps a new government willing to seek accommodation — but such a prospect seems highly unlikely in the current climate of escalation. The Iranian regime could survive in a degraded state, prompting an era of proxy attacks, assassinations, terrorism and economic disruption.For India, the stakes are high. Millions of Indians working in the Gulf now face an uncertain future, while thousands of travellers remain cut off from transit hubs like Dubai, though recent evacuations of stranded passengers have eased the strain. Our domestic priority of affordable oil is undermined, threatening the very growth that fuels our development efforts. India’s call for de-escalation and diplomacy is a necessity. Our path to development requires peace and stability in our extended neighbourhood. We must lead the international community in demanding that the missiles flying in all directions stop, before the West Asian abyss grows wide enough to engulf us all.The writer is MP, Lok Sabha, and chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs