Roaring Lion’s Epic Fury Against Iran Highlight Limits of India’s Strategic Autonomy

February 28, 2026 was a turning point in not only in the geo-political situation in West Asia—when Israel and the United States, ignoring international law and the UN charter, unleashed their combined operations “Roaring Lion” and “Epic Fury” by attacking Iran and decapitating its top leadership—but also tested the resilience and autonomy of the policies of its immediate neighbors and regional powers like India.

In this scenario, the Indian Government’s policy became a subject of intense internal debate and deeply fractured the famed “consensus” over the nation’s foreign policy, believed to be supported across the party lines.

India’s actions are widely seen not as simple neutrality but as a deliberate attempt to identify areas of agreement, protect immediate national interests, and avoid being drawn into regional disputes, despite pressure from some to be more vocal. While some view India's approach as a necessary, a mature response to protect its citizens and energy needs, others, including many in the Global South, are critical of the silence or restrained reaction to the Israeli-US chutzpah in the region.

The reality on the ground highlights the limits of India’s strategic autonomy.

February 28, 2026 was a turning point in not only in the geo-political situation in West Asia—when Israel and the United States, ignoring international law and the UN charter, unleashed their combined operations “Roaring Lion” and “Epic Fury” by attacking Iran and decapitating its top leadership—but also tested the resilience and autonomy of the policies of its immediate neighbors and regional powers like India.

In this scenario, the Indian Government’s policy became a subject of intense internal debate and deeply fractured the famed “consensus” over the nation’s foreign policy, believed to be supported across the party lines.

In an interview to the Chandigarh-based daily “The Tribune,” former Indian diplomat Navdeep Suri said: “My sense is that this has not been the finest hour of Indian diplomacy!” Suri, India's former ambassador to Egypt and the UAE, is considered an expert on the Arab world. He was posted in Egypt from 2012 to 2015, and in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the Emirates from 2016 to 2019.

“Looking at the facts objectively, I think Prime Minister Modi's visit to Israel [February 25-26], reveal his whole embrace of Netanyahu. Getting a medal from the Knesset—all of that badly tanked, and this is because we knew that the war was imminent. Everybody was preparing for it in a sense,” said the former ambassador.

He asked two questions: “Why did they [Modi] go at that point? And if you [Modi] did, did you try to use your leverage and friendship and relationship with Netanyahu to dissuade him from pursuing a course of action that has been so destructive to our national interests?”

Here's a friendly country which has embarked unilaterally or encoded to the Americans on a course that has damaged the Indian economy. From being in a Goldilocks situation three months back today, Indian GDP forecasts have been downgraded by everybody—from Moody's and Goldman Sachs to the IMF.

“So we've paid a real price for it. Secondly, I think there was zero downside to having issued an immediate message of condolence to Iran, when many members of its top leadership were killed? This is standard protocol,” Suri stated.

He pointed out that only five days after the killing of Iran’s top leadership in combined Israeli-US strikes, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri visited the Iranian Embassy in New Delhi to sign the condolence book.

Prominent political analyst Sanjay Baru, the media advisor of former Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, claimed on X (former Twitter) quoting sources that during his visit to Israel, Modi was assured by Netanyahu that Israel and the US will bring about regime change in Iran in “four days.” This explains the delay in New Delhi’s reaching out to leaders in Tehran when it became obvious that the Iranian regime not only survived but also retaliated.

YouTube channel HW News English’s anchor Neelu Vyas noted that according to strategic analysts, Sanjay Baru unveiled: “ What has been spoken of in hushed tones in New Delhi.”

Modi trusted Bibi's claim that the Iranian regime will be finished for good with the Israeli strikes, and India thus planned its policy on Iran, waiting for the next government to take power in Tehran. Did Netanyahu actually share this information with Modi? If the prime minister did know about it, why did he not alert Iran? Is it because the relationship between India and Iran is not an ordinary relationship? It has a strategic importance, an economic dimension and a cultural tie, and India and Iran were, in many respects, the best of friends. So, why did Modi do this supposed betrayal? Here lies a very crucial question: what is the reason beyond this?

Ambassador Suri believes that India sacrificed a degree of its much-wanted strategic autonomy in that first week. “After that, we've been trying to claw back. Some of it, by working with Iran on a bunch of things by sending humanitarian assistance. But in a sense, we are trying to make up for lost ground. We shouldn't have made those mistakes in the first place,” he said talking to the Tribune journalists.

Most Indian defense analysts, including Praveen Sawhney, Editor-in-Chief of Force magazine, declare Iran as the winner of the war against the most powerful enemy—the US—and its ally Israel.

Former Indian diplomat Anil Trigunayat recently said in a podcast that “Israel has the finger at the trigger of the American pistol” and compared the present dispensation in Tel-Aviv with the fanatic regime of Iran.

“Both regimes are equally fanatic, but Israel is an expansionist state and a weakened Iran will destabilize the Gulf,” Trigunayat believes. In addition, he believes the biggest challenge will be post-conflict reconciliation between the Arab monarchies and Iran who have suffered serious damage due to Tehran’s retaliatory strikes.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who was under scathing criticism from his political opposition, speaking in the Lok Sabha (lower chamber of parliament) three weeks after the US-Israeli attack on Iran, stated that India’s diplomatic response to the West Asia conflict has been clear from the very beginning, one of expressing deep concern, advocating de-escalation, and opposing attacks on civilians, energy, and transport infrastructure.

Modi, informing the parliament that he has engaged with all relevant West Asian leaders and urged them to reduce tensions and end the conflict, and emphasizing that attacks on commercial ships and obstruction of international waterways like the Strait of Hormuz are wholly unacceptable, asserted, “India, through diplomacy, is making continuous efforts for the safe passage of Indian ships even amidst the war environment.”

Reaffirming India’s unwavering commitment to humanity and peace, the Prime Minister stressed that dialogue and diplomacy remain the only path to resolution. Noting that every Indian effort is directed at de-escalation and the cessation of hostilities, and that the endangering of any life in this war runs counter to the interests of humanity, Modi remarked: “India’s effort is to encourage all parties to arrive at a peaceful resolution as soon as possible.”

Although it is easy to criticize Modi for the lack of direct condemnation of the aggressors, but to justify himself, he can always argue that he is also responsible for the wellbeing of 1.4 billion Indians whose lives are directly affected by the conflicting parties in West Asia, many of which, like the UAE, are New Delhi’s close or strategic partners. While Iran is a civilizational partner, almost 10 million Indian migrants working in the UAE are a major source of foreign exchange and supporting their families back home.

The war has increased fuel prices and heightened risks of supply shocks, threatening to fuel domestic inflation and slow economic growth, drawing further into focus India’s real vulnerabilities. “Indeed, if Modi criticized anyone in the four weeks that the US and Israel pounded Iran, it should be Tehran­, for launching attacks on the Gulf states that host the US military, in the course of which resulted in collateral civilian damage.

Besides, in early February of this year, it is useful to remember, the Indian leader had agreed to “align sufficiently with the United States on national sovereignty, foreign policy and economic matters… as stated explicitly in Trump’s Executive Order of February 6,” Anand Sahay, a veteran journalist wrote in his column in the Wire web portal. Sahay claims that Modi has virtually surrendered India’s strategic autonomy to accommodate America’s interests.

This explicitly defines the limits of India’s strategic autonomy at a time when New Delhi is holding the rotating presidency of the BRICS group of nations which now comprises Iran and the UAE, which are both involved in direct conflict.

The recent meeting in New Delhi of deputy ministers and the envoys of BRICS countries failed to adopt a joint document due to clashes between Iran, the UAE, and India, diluting the anti-Israeli resolution on Palestine. Prominent members of BRICS like Brazil, South Africa and, of course, Russia and China have immediately condemned the unprovoked US-Israeli aggression on Iran, while India, citing need for consensus, is ducking the issue.

India is obviously navigating a delicate "strategic tightrope" in the West Asia conflict, balancing its critical energy security and large diaspora in the Gulf with a nuanced, non-aligned approach that often appears to tilt toward the US-Israel axis. This stance has created a divided opinion, with concerns that it risks departing from its traditional, independent, and "Global South" voice.

A veteran Indian diplomat Pavan Varma and a former member of parliament believes that any lasting solution of the Middle East (West Asia) crisis is impossible without resolving the Palestinian issue by implementing the two-states formula.

Key Aspects of India’s Position and the Resulting Debate

Strategic Autonomy vs. Pro-West Tilt: India officially advocates for de-escalation, dialogue, and a two-state solution. However, its diplomatic, economic, and maritime closeness to Israel and the US within the I2U2 alliance (Signed in 2021 by India, Israel, the US, and UAE, often dubbed as the “Middle East Quad”) has fueled perceptions of a tilted stance. National Security Advisor Ajit Doval visited the UAE on April 26 and had a meeting with President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan just two days before Abu Dhabi announced its exit from OPEC and OPEC+.

Some experts believe that this challenges India’s traditional "independent actor" image, requiring a re-calibration to avoid appearing aligned with a single bloc. India’s caution is driven by the urgent need to protect almost 10 million citizens in the Gulf (whose safety is threatened by conflict) and over 40–50 percent of its crude oil imports passing through the volatile Strait of Hormuz. The war has increased fuel prices and heightened risks of supply shocks, threatening to fuel domestic inflation and slow economic growth, which has drawn focus toward India’s vulnerability. These challenges explain New Delhi’s cautious diplomacy.

India’s actions are widely seen not as simple neutrality but as a deliberate attempt to identify areas of agreement, protect immediate national interests, and avoid being drawn into regional disputes, despite pressure from some to be more vocal. While some view India's approach as a necessary, a mature response to protect its citizens and energy needs, others, including many in the Global South, are critical of the silence or restrained reaction to the Israeli-US chutzpah in the region.

The reality on the ground highlights the limits of India’s strategic autonomy.