• Modi’s Double Standards: Prime Minister Modi condemned neither Israel nor the U.S. for strikes on Iran—revealing India’s diplomatic tilt toward the West and Tel Aviv.

• UN & SCO Abstention: India abstained from both the UNGA Gaza ceasefire vote and the SCO condemnation of Israel, showing cowardice instead of neutrality.

• Betrayal of Iran Ties: Once a close partner, Iran has seen India’s oil imports vanish and the Chabahar project stall—while India strengthens billion-dollar defense ties with Israel.

• Espionage Allegations: Reports emerged of Indian intelligence operations on Iranian soil in collaboration with Israel, further eroding trust between Tehran and New Delhi.

India’s diplomatic posture during the recent Iran–Israel war has been riddled with contradictions, exposing what many see as a duplicitous balancing act masquerading as neutrality. New Delhi’s gestures have lacked moral clarity and strategic consistency, revealing the fault lines in its so-called “strategic autonomy.”

On June 22, Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a phone conversation with Iran’s newly elected President, Masoud Pezeshkian. During the call, Modi expressed India’s “deep concern” over the escalations in the region and emphasized the importance of dialogue and diplomacy to ensure peace and stability.

Yet conspicuously, Modi refrained from condemning the Israeli strikes on Iranian territory—an omission that speaks volumes. The silence not only questions India’s proclaimed neutrality but also suggests a clear tilt. If India genuinely seeks regional peace, why was there no condemnation of Israel’s blatant aggression?

A Sacred Duty: Inside Pakistan Army’s Unrelenting War on Terror

See more

More glaring was India’s studied silence over the United States’ airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities prior to Modi’s call with the Iranian president. The U.S. action, a clear violation of Iranian sovereignty, warranted no mention in Modi’s conversation. This selective outrage raises legitimate questions: Was the phone call merely a performative gesture to maintain appearances? Was it an empty attempt to placate Iran while keeping Israel and the U.S. appeased?

Adding to the duplicity was Modi’s earlier conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on June 13. Once again, Modi emphasized the need for restoring peace in the Middle East but conveniently avoided discussing Israeli aggression against Iran. It is difficult to ignore the personal affinity Modi has often displayed toward Netanyahu, repeatedly referring to him as “my friend” on social media. This emotional alignment casts further doubt on India’s claims of strategic impartiality.

READ MORE: A Sacred Duty: Inside Pakistan Army’s Unrelenting War on Terror

India’s hypocrisy became even more evident on June 12, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire in Gaza and the lifting of Israel’s blockade. Of the 149 countries that supported the resolution—including traditional Western allies like the United Kingdom and Australia—India was one of only 19 that abstained, and the only Asian country to do so. The message was clear: India was unwilling to take a principled stand when it might offend Israel or the United States.

India’s inconsistency didn’t end there. When the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) condemned Israeli strikes on Iran, India distanced itself from the statement, choosing not to participate in the discussion. The only action India took was a phone conversation between External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and his Iranian counterpart, in which India urged diplomatic engagement. At the same time, India expressed gratitude to Iran for facilitating the evacuation of Indian nationals—another indication that while India wanted Iranian cooperation, it was unwilling to reciprocate with solidarity.

ALSO READ: US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump’s Iran war powers

This diplomatic schizophrenia exposes the hollowness of India’s claims to strategic autonomy. India has historically maintained good relations with both Israel and Iran. However, its recent behavior suggests a dangerous over-dependence on the West and Tel Aviv, with little regard for long-standing partnerships. Iran, once one of India’s closest energy suppliers, now exports virtually no oil to India. Indian investment in the Chabahar Port—once seen as a flagship project—has been suspended, largely due to Western sanctions. In contrast, India’s defense trade with Israel has crossed $2.9 billion.

Iran, for its part, has demonstrated goodwill toward India even during times of tension. During the latest India–Pakistan standoff, Iran’s foreign minister visited both New Delhi and Islamabad, offering to mediate and restore peace. Iran’s more sympathetic tilt toward Pakistan on the Kashmir issue has long irked India, but rather than engaging constructively, India has responded with passive-aggressive silence and double standards.

Perhaps most damning were reports during the conflict suggesting that India was facilitating Israeli intelligence operations on Iranian soil. If proven, this would amount to a flagrant betrayal of diplomatic trust and could permanently damage the bilateral relationship.

In the final analysis, India’s stance in the Iran–Israel conflict has not only alienated Iran but also demolished its self-styled image as a non-aligned, sovereign global player. The mask has slipped. What has emerged is a country desperately trying to play both sides—one that lectures the world on moral leadership but falters when ethics collide with interests. Iran would be wise to recalibrate its approach to India in light of these developments. A reassessment is not only warranted—it is overdue.