Why India must not mediate the Iran-Israel War?
Article by Debalina Ghoshal
Mediation is a process in conflict management in which states participate as mediators to resolve a conflict-like situation and, in some cases, aim to achieve peace in a full-fledged war. In recent weeks, there have been many debates on why India should participate in mediation in the Iran-Israel War. This article argues reasons why India should not mediate in the Iran-Israel dispute despite neighbours willing to participate in the mediation process. It chalks out some reasons why India should not become a mediator in the war.
Multi-front War
The Iran-Israel conflict is a multi-front war in which the security of many countries is at stake at the moment. The war not only comprises symmetric state systems but also includes asymmetric groups, furthering the foreign policy objectives of the state system. Mediation under such circumstances is the most difficult process which India must avoid at all costs. The war also witnessed India’s key partners being attacked for hosting US forward bases on their territories. To mediate in such a scenario would ideally also mean to mediate with all the other countries that host US forward bases in the region and are affected by military offensives. It also means bringing into the mediation table those countries that have forward bases in the Middle East, like France, and have been affected by the war. Without such a holistic approach, mediation will remain a partial process without complete mechanisms functioning to retrieve peace in the region.
Unclear agendas of the parties in conflict
Mediation can happen only when states involved in a conflict have clear agendas for the fight. The war has been mired in confusion, with a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) member, the United States, allying with a non-NATO member, Israel. Nevertheless, in recent speeches of the President of the United States, Mr Donald Trump, he expected NATO members to facilitate the US military in the war. He also expected Ukraine to help the United States, as he expected NATO’s help. There is confusion in alliance formation here, and it is unclear if the US wanted this operation to be NATO-led or a non-NATO-led operation. Confusions and complexities are further worsened with NATO members like France, the United Kingdom and Germany raising concerns of not being informed prior to the attack despite having forces stationed there. In the recent instance of the Iran-Israel War, French President Mr Emmanuel Macron iterated that France was “neither informed nor involved” in the attacks on Iran by Israel and the United States.
Legal Issues Ahead
In addition, Iran is a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and under Article IV of the Treaty, all parties to the treaty have an inalienable right to pursue nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. India legally does not have the right to prevent Iran, a signatory to the NPT, from pursuing peaceful nuclear energy. Since Iran claims its missile development program is for ‘self-defence’, India also does not have the right to prevent any state from pursuing a weapons development program as long as it is for self-defence. Also, when a conflict-like situation escalates into a war with multiple parties, including asymmetric organisations being a part of it, such matters are dealt with by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), and India abides by the UNSC resolutions.
Fostered Partnerships
While greater initiatives have been taken by Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey for the goodwill of the region to promote the mediation process, which deserves applause with Iran and the United States, there is no inclusion of Israel in this process. Also, Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey do not have close ties with Israel. Their mediation process is easier in nature. India has fostered greater partnerships with both Iran and Israel, and hence, could allow Pakistan, Egypt and Turkey to take the lead. Other issues include the non-inclusion of NATO countries in the mediation process, which is very crucial as they host critical military assets in the region, which are affected by a war they did not start.
Mediation is a peaceful process, not a threat
In a mediation process, the concerns of both sides are taken into consideration. But in this case, mediators are only functioning on the aspect of opening the Strait of Hormuz rather than the main issue that has led to this scenario. Through the mediation process, a clearer picture needs to be drawn in which the security dilemma between the United States and Israel regarding the Iranian nuclear program is obliterated.
This would require a mediation process in a two-pronged manner: one in which the UNSC Permanent Five (P5), Russia, China, Britain and France are included to discuss the Strait of Hormuz and the war scenario. In the phase, the European3 (E3): Germany, France and Britain: one of the major forces behind the success of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) is included to discuss the nuclear issue with Iran.
As of now, in the mediation process, there is only a direct threat of complying with the restrictions provided by the United States and the mediators failing, which would have serious consequences for Iran. Thus, India has taken the correct decision by staying away from this mediation process that is dealing with less compassion.
Economic Fostering over third-party mediation
As countries try hard to mediate and bring peace to the region, India is also trying to foster economic ties with Iran to strengthen strategic relations. This is evident from Iran’s ambassador to India, Mohammad Fathali’s commitment to ensure that India-Iran’s future in economic relations remains “positive and expansive.” India and Iran vouched to continue work on Chabahar Port even as the conflict is ongoing, but will “expand even more rapidly” after the war ends. In April 2026, Indian refiners purchased Iranian oil after seven years. Indian Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) tankers are allowed to slowly cross the Strait of Hormuz. India must leverage its cordial ties with Iran to mitigate security concerns and exert its economic influence in Syria.
Conclusion
Foreign policy is fundamentally a positive process aimed at fostering international relations and stability. Mediation plays a crucial role in this context, especially when strategies like deterrence and goodwill have not yielded the desired outcomes. When conflicts arise, the mediation process must embody compassion and empathy, taking into account the concerns and perspectives of both parties involved. This approach ensures that the mediation is not just a procedural formality, but rather a genuine effort to bridge divides and foster understanding. Only by prioritising the emotional and political needs of both sides can mediation truly be deemed a success.
Furthermore, the involvement of key international players, such as the E3, which comprises France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, can significantly influence the efficacy of the mediation process. Their absence could complicate negotiations and lead to misunderstandings. Their collective diplomatic strength and experience can provide a balanced approach that is crucial for successful conflict resolution. Therefore, integrating the E3 into mediation efforts is vital, as it can offer not only leverage but also a platform for constructive dialogue. Ultimately, a thoughtful and inclusive mediation process contributes to a more peaceful and cooperative international landscape.
Views are those of the Author(s)
