ConflictClarifier

2026 Iran-Gulf Crisis Tracker
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 6, 2026

India won’t be dragged into Iran war, but can’t stay indifferent: Shashi Tharoor

Summary

India won't be dragged into Iran war, but can't stay indifferent: Shashi Tharoor While India is unlikely to enter the conflict in the Middle East militarily, the repercussions are already being felt, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said, particularly by Indian nationals living and working in the Gulf states. India will not be drawn into the ongoing war in the Middle East, but the conflict is already having serious consequences for the country and its citizens abroad, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor told India Today TV. In an exclusive conversation with Consulting Editor Rajdeep Sardesai as US-Israel's war on Iran entered the seventh day, Tharoor stated that New Delhi’s priority should be pushing for a ceasefire at the earliest. “It is very much in India’s interest to demand de-escalation and diplomacy,” Tharoor said. While India is unlikely to enter the conflict militarily, the repercussions are already being felt, he said, particularly by Indian nationals living and working in the Gulf states. He highlighted the plight of those who were stranded at airports due to projectiles flying overhead as well as business-owners impacted due to the outbreak of war. “We are a country with nine to ten million of our nationals in the Gulf. For us, this is something that really does affect their lives and their ability to do well, send remittances home, all of that. So we can't be indifferent,” he said. THAROOR’S TAKE ON US OIL WAIVER Tharoor’s remarks come amid political sparring after the US announced a 30-day waiver "allowing" India to continue purchasing Russian oil. The move by the Donald Trump administration is aimed at stabilising global energy markets as tensions in the Middle East drive uncertainty in oil supplies. Opposition parties have lashed out at the government over the waiver, questioning whether it undermines India’s sovereignty. Asked whether New Delhi should send a tough message to Washington, Tharoor said the government faces difficult economic realities. “The problem is the consequences if we don't. For the companies that are purchasing Russian oil and putting it into their refineries, without that waiver they get subject to sanctions which effect on all their businesses. So there is, to my mind, a choice that has to be made,” he said. The Congress MP pointed out that the waiver would provide significant relief to Indian refiners, without risking sanctions. “With that waiver, they can openly purchase for those 30 days, knowing that those purchases will be exempt from any negative consequences for their companies,” he said. Despite his own party’s criticism of the government’s approach to Washington, Tharoor said policy choices must be evaluated in terms of national interest. Ultimately, he added, India's interest is in ending the conflict as soon as possible. ‘RESPECT THE CHOICES GOVT HAS MADE’ Asked whether India should take a principled stand on the conflict or choose not to antagonise the mercurial Trump, he remarked, “I think you really have to respect the choices the government has made as choices that they deem at that point to be in the best interests of India, given that there would be consequences for other choices,” he said. A career diplomat, Tharoor noted that New Delhi has tried to strike a careful balance at a fraught time. While India hasn't endorsed the US-Israeli military action against Iran, it has also not condemned it. Pointing to the cautious positions taken by several other countries, Tharoor said restraint can sometimes be a deliberate diplomatic strategy. "We have kept open lines of communication to Iran and we have expressed a hope that matters will be resolved very quickly. That seems to be the choice that we have made," he said. Critics often underestimate the practical constraints governments face when taking public positions in international conflicts, he remarked. "So I find it difficult to sit here outside the government and say, I want the government to say all these things because the government then has to live with the consequences," the Congress leader said. Ultimately, he added, “India's interest is in ending this war as soon as possible.” ON TRUMP’S JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR On the broader justification for the war, Tharoor poked holes into US and Israeli claims that their joint operation against Iran was pre-emptive. “The logic of pre-emptive self-defence, which is something that has been cited by apologists for this war saying that if we hadn't done it, the Iranians would have developed a nuclear weapon and attacked us first, doesn't really hold up when the Omani negotiators who've been mediating talks between the Americans and the Iranians claimed that the Iranians had already agreed to no nukes, zero enriched uranium stockpiles, and other steps that would have essentially eliminated the threat of a nuclear weapon from Iran,” he said. Tharoor also warned against writing off international institutions like the United Nations, even as the conflict exposes their limitations. “The fact is international law is now being buffeted about by those who have the power to disregard its consequences, but that doesn't mean the UN is out of the window,” he said. In the same breath, he acknowledged that the UN is "congenitally, chronically unable to act in a situation where a permanent member is on the warpath". A global forum like the UN can be of use to India and to the rest of the world on various other issues, so it shouldn't be discarded, he said.

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran