- Jan 3, 2010
- 2,103
- 446
- 81
US-Israel-Iran Conflict: 'India Is Too Late In...'
March 06, 2026 09:16 IST
'We have worked for decades building good relations with Iran and it is mutually beneficial.'
'To suddenly give the impression of taking a position that is hostile to Iran, or, at least, not friendly to Iran, is not a good thing.'
IMAGE: Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Iranian President Dr Masoud Pezeshkian on the sidelines of the BRICS 2024 Summit in Kazan. Photograph: Kind courtesy MEA/Instagram
When the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran on February 28 2026 -- killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, senior Revolutionary Guard commanders, and hundreds of civilians -- India's response was, at best, a whisper.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had addressed the Knesset -- the Israeli parliament -- just 48 hours earlier, declaring India stood with Israel 'firmly, with full conviction.'
New Delhi's silence as Tehran burned and its delayed expression of 'deep concern,' prompted sharp domestic and international criticism.
India's ten million-strong diaspora across the Gulf, the Chabahar port agreement, and energy ties worth billions suddenly hang in uncertain air.
Few are better placed to read what this moment means than Mohammad Hamid Ansari -- India's former vice president, one-time ambassador to Iran, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and a career diplomat who spent decades carefully building relationships that he now watches being quietly dismantled.
Key Points
'They have committed aggression against Iran. Iran has every right to defend itself'
How do you look at the ongoing conflict between the US and Israel against Iran?
IMAGE: Smoke rises following an explosion in Tehran, February 28, 2026 in this screen grab taken from video. Photograph: WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
See, that is a very big subject. Two countries have attacked one country. What is there to interview about, really?
Because it is destabilising the entire region with far-reaching consequences for the global order...
Yes, but the cause of that destabilisation is the aggression committed on Iran. As simple as that.
India's response came rather late -- the external affairs minister spoke with his Iranian counterpart Syed Abbas Aragchi only this evening, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri signed the book of condolence at the Iranian embassy. Do you think this was too little, too late?
Signing the book of condolence today is certainly too late -- no question about it. The person in question died many days ago. He held the status of a head of State. It should have been done much earlier.
What, in your view, is the single biggest misunderstanding the United States and Israel have about Iran? And does history suggest that bombing a nation into regime change actually produces the government you want?
No. Obviously not. This is high-handedness, plain and simple. Under international law, under the UN Charter, under every norm of civilised conduct -- how can you decide you will change someone else's government?
This is high-handedness on the part of the United States and Israel, and the world should call it out as such. Not go about it in soft sentences.
What is the single biggest mistake these two powers are making in their analysis of Iran? Iran has been holding out even after six days of strikes.
They have committed aggression against Iran. Iran has every right to defend itself, and it is doing so to the best of its ability. What the final outcome will be, I am in no position to say. But this is high-handedness -- and they have not done it individually. They have done it jointly.
What's US-Israel's endgame in Iran?
From a diplomat's perspective, is there any off-ramp left? Has this conflict passed the point of no return?
IMAGE: People gather on the streets amid anti-government unrest in Tehran, in this still image obtained from social media video released on January 8, 2026. Photograph: Social Media/via Reuters
I cannot say with certainty, as I am not fully aware of the situation on the ground. But what has happened is wrong -- a violation of every norm of civility and international law. And Iran is perfectly within its rights to defend itself.
On February 25, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said a historic agreement was within reach in Geneva -- then the strikes began within 48 hours. President Trump later released a video confirming the goal was regime change, and praised himself for Khamenei's assassination.
As someone who has sat across the table from Iranian diplomats, would Iran have known what was coming?
Do not just go by what the Iranian minister said -- look at what the Omani minister said. He was acting as the intermediary, and he stated on the record that an agreement was within reach. Then suddenly the Americans turned around, disowned everything, and attacked.
What endgame are America and Israel actually trying to achieve in the region?
Dominate the Gulf -- and dominate it in favour of Israel. There are no two views about it.
But did the experiments in Libya and Iraq not fail miserably for the United States? They tried regime change there too.
The US learns nothing. With all the power they have, all the money, they have been the defeated party in every single conflict after the Second World War. Vietnam -- defeated. Iraq -- defeated. Afghanistan -- defeated. Libya -- same story. This is high-handedness. Look at what they did to Venezuela, for example.
Iran is hardly Venezuela.
Iran is not Venezuela. You are not going to pick up somebody and take them home.
'That is precisely why Iran is striking them'
How real is the fear -- expressed by some American and Israeli experts -- that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilise the entire Gulf? How genuine is that nuclear threat?
IMAGE: Smoke rises in the sky after blasts were heard in Manama, Bahrain, February 28, 2026. Photograph: Reuters
Iran has said again and again, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed again and again, that Iran is not making a bomb. This is on record. America itself accepted this in the previous agreement -- which Mr Trump has since disowned.
Nuclear research is something any country may pursue. How can you dictate that you will permit nuclear research in country X but not in country Y?
In fact, last June President Trump himself claimed that US strikes on Fordow and Natanz had destroyed Iran's bomb-making capabilities.
He is constantly contradicting himself for his own purposes. It is unbecoming a head of State to speak in this manner, but unfortunately this is the reality.
India has nearly ten million workers across the Gulf. Iran has struck energy infrastructure across the region and warned it will target all economic centres -- Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia. How long before the safety of the Indian diaspora forces New Delhi's hand?
America has military installations in each one of those countries. That is precisely why Iran is striking them -- from Iraq right down to the UAE.
As for the Indian diaspora, we have known for a long time that any disturbance of peace in the Persian Gulf causes hardship to Indian nationals, a very large number of whom are gainfully employed there. That should be our primary concern -- not what country X or country Y intends with its aggressive plans.
A US submarine sank an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka, killing at least 87 sailors. That very ship had participated as a guest at the MILAN 2026 naval exercise in Visakhapatnam. India said nothing.
What does that silence tell Iran?
The facts speak for themselves. What can I say? Ask the Government of India officially -- they will tell you.
'We have worked for decades building good relations with Iran'
Prime Minister Modi visited Israel just 48 hours before the strikes began, addressed the Knesset, and said India stands with Israel firmly. And yet, as Iran burned, he made no statement. What do you make of that silence?
IMAGE: Then prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh meets Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khamenei on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Tehran in August 2012. Photograph: Press Information Bureau
That question should be directed to the prime minister.
As a former ambassador to Iran, how does this asymmetry read in Tehran? Has India permanently picked a side?
This is not something that has happened overnight. We have worked for decades building good relations with Iran and it is mutually beneficial -- for us and for them. So to suddenly give the impression of taking a position that is hostile to Iran, or, at least, not friendly to Iran, is not a good thing.
Drawing on your years in Tehran and the UAE, what one concrete step must India take to avoid being permanently written off by both sides? Can India still play a constructive role?
I cannot really say. I am a retired old man and not fully in the picture anymore. But it is not the way I would have liked things to happen.
What would your advice be to the Indian government?
I do not know what advice to give today. But I can say this -- we did not build these relationships in a day. Whether it was the UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else in that region, we worked with each one of them systematically, carefully, over many years. We cultivated those ties. We did not junk them overnight.
Photographs curated by Manisha Kotian/Rediff
March 06, 2026 09:16 IST
'We have worked for decades building good relations with Iran and it is mutually beneficial.'
'To suddenly give the impression of taking a position that is hostile to Iran, or, at least, not friendly to Iran, is not a good thing.'
IMAGE: Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Iranian President Dr Masoud Pezeshkian on the sidelines of the BRICS 2024 Summit in Kazan. Photograph: Kind courtesy MEA/Instagram
When the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran on February 28 2026 -- killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, senior Revolutionary Guard commanders, and hundreds of civilians -- India's response was, at best, a whisper.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi had addressed the Knesset -- the Israeli parliament -- just 48 hours earlier, declaring India stood with Israel 'firmly, with full conviction.'
New Delhi's silence as Tehran burned and its delayed expression of 'deep concern,' prompted sharp domestic and international criticism.
India's ten million-strong diaspora across the Gulf, the Chabahar port agreement, and energy ties worth billions suddenly hang in uncertain air.
Few are better placed to read what this moment means than Mohammad Hamid Ansari -- India's former vice president, one-time ambassador to Iran, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, and a career diplomat who spent decades carefully building relationships that he now watches being quietly dismantled.
Key Points
- Hamid Ansari calls the US-Israel strikes on Iran straightforward aggression under international law, arguing Iran has every legal right to defend itself.
- He says America has failed militarily in every post-World War II conflict -- Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya -- and shows no sign of learning from those defeats.
- On Iran's nuclear programme, Mr Ansari says the IAEA has repeatedly confirmed Iran is not building a bomb, and that Trump contradicts himself by claiming otherwise.
- India's delayed condolence and Modi's Knesset address just 48 hours before the strikes on Iran have, in Mr Ansari's view, damaged decades of carefully cultivated ties with Tehran.
- He warns that the Gulf's stability is directly tied to the safety and livelihoods of millions of Indian nationals, making this conflict a matter of vital national interest for India.
'They have committed aggression against Iran. Iran has every right to defend itself'
How do you look at the ongoing conflict between the US and Israel against Iran?
IMAGE: Smoke rises following an explosion in Tehran, February 28, 2026 in this screen grab taken from video. Photograph: WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
See, that is a very big subject. Two countries have attacked one country. What is there to interview about, really?
Because it is destabilising the entire region with far-reaching consequences for the global order...
Yes, but the cause of that destabilisation is the aggression committed on Iran. As simple as that.
India's response came rather late -- the external affairs minister spoke with his Iranian counterpart Syed Abbas Aragchi only this evening, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri signed the book of condolence at the Iranian embassy. Do you think this was too little, too late?
Signing the book of condolence today is certainly too late -- no question about it. The person in question died many days ago. He held the status of a head of State. It should have been done much earlier.
What, in your view, is the single biggest misunderstanding the United States and Israel have about Iran? And does history suggest that bombing a nation into regime change actually produces the government you want?
No. Obviously not. This is high-handedness, plain and simple. Under international law, under the UN Charter, under every norm of civilised conduct -- how can you decide you will change someone else's government?
This is high-handedness on the part of the United States and Israel, and the world should call it out as such. Not go about it in soft sentences.
What is the single biggest mistake these two powers are making in their analysis of Iran? Iran has been holding out even after six days of strikes.
They have committed aggression against Iran. Iran has every right to defend itself, and it is doing so to the best of its ability. What the final outcome will be, I am in no position to say. But this is high-handedness -- and they have not done it individually. They have done it jointly.
What's US-Israel's endgame in Iran?
From a diplomat's perspective, is there any off-ramp left? Has this conflict passed the point of no return?
IMAGE: People gather on the streets amid anti-government unrest in Tehran, in this still image obtained from social media video released on January 8, 2026. Photograph: Social Media/via Reuters
I cannot say with certainty, as I am not fully aware of the situation on the ground. But what has happened is wrong -- a violation of every norm of civility and international law. And Iran is perfectly within its rights to defend itself.
On February 25, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said a historic agreement was within reach in Geneva -- then the strikes began within 48 hours. President Trump later released a video confirming the goal was regime change, and praised himself for Khamenei's assassination.
As someone who has sat across the table from Iranian diplomats, would Iran have known what was coming?
Do not just go by what the Iranian minister said -- look at what the Omani minister said. He was acting as the intermediary, and he stated on the record that an agreement was within reach. Then suddenly the Americans turned around, disowned everything, and attacked.
What endgame are America and Israel actually trying to achieve in the region?
Dominate the Gulf -- and dominate it in favour of Israel. There are no two views about it.
But did the experiments in Libya and Iraq not fail miserably for the United States? They tried regime change there too.
The US learns nothing. With all the power they have, all the money, they have been the defeated party in every single conflict after the Second World War. Vietnam -- defeated. Iraq -- defeated. Afghanistan -- defeated. Libya -- same story. This is high-handedness. Look at what they did to Venezuela, for example.
Iran is hardly Venezuela.
Iran is not Venezuela. You are not going to pick up somebody and take them home.
'That is precisely why Iran is striking them'
How real is the fear -- expressed by some American and Israeli experts -- that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilise the entire Gulf? How genuine is that nuclear threat?
IMAGE: Smoke rises in the sky after blasts were heard in Manama, Bahrain, February 28, 2026. Photograph: Reuters
Iran has said again and again, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed again and again, that Iran is not making a bomb. This is on record. America itself accepted this in the previous agreement -- which Mr Trump has since disowned.
Nuclear research is something any country may pursue. How can you dictate that you will permit nuclear research in country X but not in country Y?
In fact, last June President Trump himself claimed that US strikes on Fordow and Natanz had destroyed Iran's bomb-making capabilities.
He is constantly contradicting himself for his own purposes. It is unbecoming a head of State to speak in this manner, but unfortunately this is the reality.
India has nearly ten million workers across the Gulf. Iran has struck energy infrastructure across the region and warned it will target all economic centres -- Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia. How long before the safety of the Indian diaspora forces New Delhi's hand?
America has military installations in each one of those countries. That is precisely why Iran is striking them -- from Iraq right down to the UAE.
As for the Indian diaspora, we have known for a long time that any disturbance of peace in the Persian Gulf causes hardship to Indian nationals, a very large number of whom are gainfully employed there. That should be our primary concern -- not what country X or country Y intends with its aggressive plans.
A US submarine sank an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka, killing at least 87 sailors. That very ship had participated as a guest at the MILAN 2026 naval exercise in Visakhapatnam. India said nothing.
What does that silence tell Iran?
The facts speak for themselves. What can I say? Ask the Government of India officially -- they will tell you.
'We have worked for decades building good relations with Iran'
Prime Minister Modi visited Israel just 48 hours before the strikes began, addressed the Knesset, and said India stands with Israel firmly. And yet, as Iran burned, he made no statement. What do you make of that silence?
IMAGE: Then prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh meets Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khamenei on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Tehran in August 2012. Photograph: Press Information Bureau
That question should be directed to the prime minister.
As a former ambassador to Iran, how does this asymmetry read in Tehran? Has India permanently picked a side?
This is not something that has happened overnight. We have worked for decades building good relations with Iran and it is mutually beneficial -- for us and for them. So to suddenly give the impression of taking a position that is hostile to Iran, or, at least, not friendly to Iran, is not a good thing.
Drawing on your years in Tehran and the UAE, what one concrete step must India take to avoid being permanently written off by both sides? Can India still play a constructive role?
I cannot really say. I am a retired old man and not fully in the picture anymore. But it is not the way I would have liked things to happen.
What would your advice be to the Indian government?
I do not know what advice to give today. But I can say this -- we did not build these relationships in a day. Whether it was the UAE, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else in that region, we worked with each one of them systematically, carefully, over many years. We cultivated those ties. We did not junk them overnight.
Photographs curated by Manisha Kotian/Rediff
