The 1991 Gulf Crisis Left India Scrambling. 33 Years Later, We're Making the Same Mistakes.

priyanka230716
3 days ago
15 min read

What the Iran Strikes Reveal About India's Failure to Build True Strategic Capacity

August 1990. Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Within days, 176,000 Indians were trapped in Iraq and Kuwait—the largest civilian evacuation in history began. India had no strategic airlift capability. No military presence in the region. No evacuation protocols. Air India was converted into a makeshift evacuation fleet. The operation took two months. It worked barely. And we promised ourselves: never again.

Fast forward 33 years.

This weekend, the world watched as the United States and Israel launched what they're calling "Operation Epic Fury", a joint military assault on Iran that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, destroyed military installations across 24 of Iran's 31 provinces, and triggered retaliatory strikes that have now engulfed the entire Gulf region.

Tehran's missiles rained on Dubai, Riyadh, Tel Aviv, and American military bases from Bahrain to Kuwait. Airspaces closed. Oil prices spiked. Nearly 10 million Indians in the Gulf region suddenly found themselves in a war zone.

And here we are again.

The same scramble. The same helplessness. The same realization that despite three decades of economic growth and rising power ambitions, India still lacks the basic capacity to protect its citizens when the region erupts.

The Ministry of External Affairs issued advisories. Jaishankar made urgent calls. We hoped airspaces would reopen. We discussed sea routes that would be impossible. We set up 24/7 helplines. But we had no evacuation plan. No military assets pre-positioned. No agreements for emergency base access. No rapid deployment capability.

In 33 years, what exactly have we built?

And India? India found itself walking a diplomatic tightrope, balancing friendships with Israel, strategic interests with Iran, economic ties with the Gulf, and the urgent need to protect its diaspora.

This isn't just another Middle East conflict. This is a potential reshaping of West Asia's power structure, with implications that will ripple through global energy markets, international law, great power competition, and India's carefully cultivated strategic autonomy.

Let's break down what happened, why it matters, and what India's response tells us about the future of our foreign policy.

What Actually Happened: 72 Hours That Changed West Asia

Saturday, February 28: The Assault

At dawn, Israeli and American forces launched a coordinated attack across Iran. Over 1,200 munitions dropped across 24 provinces. The targets: military command centers, missile facilities, naval bases, and critically, Iran's Supreme Leader.

By Saturday afternoon, Israeli security officials confirmed that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 86, had been killed in air strikes targeting his office in Tehran. An Iranian state broadcaster delivered the news in tears.

President Trump announced this wasn't just a military strike, it was regime change. In a video message to the Iranian people, he said the country "will be yours to take," urging them to overthrow their government.

The scale was staggering. The US buildup was described as the largest in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Saturday Afternoon: Iran Responds

Tehran didn't wait. Within hours, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched attacks on 27 bases in the Middle East where US troops are deployed as well as Israeli military facilities.

Missiles struck:

Tel Aviv and Haifa in Israel
US Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain
Military bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE
American positions in Jordan and Iraq

At least 40 buildings in Tel Aviv were damaged in Iranian strikes. Dubai International Airport, the world's busiest for international travel, was hit. Explosions rocked Abu Dhabi's Etihad Towers, which house diplomatic missions, including Israel's embassy.

Sunday, March 1: Escalation Continues

The second wave began. Israel launched fresh strikes "in the heart of Tehran." Three US service members were killed and at least five seriously wounded—the first American combat deaths in this operation.

Iran's Foreign Ministry reported that 158 students were killed at an elementary school in Minab, in southern Iran. Six people were killed when an Iranian missile hit a residential building near Jerusalem.

Iran experienced a near-total internet shutdown, with national connectivity falling to just 4% of normal levels, a digital blackout coinciding with the military assault.

By Sunday evening, the death toll stood at over 200 in Iran, at least 9 in Israel, 3 American soldiers, and casualties across the Gulf states.

The Aftermath: A Region on Fire

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint through which 21% of global oil passes. Airlines including Lufthansa, Air France, British Airways, Air India and Turkish Airlines cancelled flights. Stock exchanges in Dubai and Kuwait suspended trading.

And here's the geopolitical earthquake: Iran established a three-person temporary leadership council to govern the country under Islamic law before a panel of Shia clerics chooses a new supreme leader.

For the first time since 1989, Iran's power structure is in flux.

The Global Response: A Fractured World Order

The international reaction reveals the deep fault lines in today's geopolitical landscape.

The West: Divided

United States: Full commitment. The Gang of Eight, a group of eight leaders in the US Congress commonly briefed on classified intelligence matters was briefed on the attack before its commencement.

United Kingdom: Complicated. Initially did not permit the US to use British military bases, but Prime Minister Starmer later agreed to let the US use them for defensive purposes. Britain confirmed its planes were "in the sky" but "played no role" in the strikes.

European Union: Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and Council President Antonio Costa called the conflict "greatly concerning" and urged restraint. However, on March 1, it was reported that von der Leyen supports a "credible transition" of power in Iran, essentially endorsing regime change after the fact.

Canada: Supported the operation, citing Israel's right to self-defense and preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Norway, Spain, Ireland Condemned the strikes as violations of international law.

Russia and China: Strongly Opposed

Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia called the US-Israeli strikes "yet another unprovoked act of armed aggression against a sovereign and independent Member State, in violation of the UN Charter," describing it as a "betrayal of diplomacy".

China's Ambassador Fu Cong described the strikes as "brazen", condemning the threat of force and calling for respect of "Iran's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity".

But here's what's interesting: Beijing has refrained from coming out in strong support of Iran. Instead, it has focused on encouraging diplomacy and regional security.

Why? Because China has its own interests, including potential concessions from Washington on Taiwan and trade issues.

The United Nations: Powerless

UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the events as "a grave threat to international peace and security," urging the international community to "pull the entire region back from the brink". But the UN Security Council? Paralyzed. The US has veto power. Russia and China oppose. Nothing binding will emerge.

Iran's Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani insisted: "This is not only an act of aggression; it is a war crime and a crime against humanity," accusing the US and Israel of deliberately attacking civilian populated areas.

The debate over international law is fierce. But enforcement? Non-existent.

India's Response: The Art of Strategic Balance

This is where it gets particularly interesting from a policy perspective. India's response reveals both the strengths and limitations of our foreign policy approach.

The Official Statement: Carefully Calibrated

"We urge all sides to exercise restraint, avoid escalation, and prioritise the safety of civilians," the Ministry of External Affairs said. "The sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries must be respected".

Notice what's NOT in that statement:

No condemnation of the US-Israel strikes
No condemnation of Iran's retaliation
No mention of international law violations
No taking of sides

It's classic Indian strategic ambiguity. And it's deliberate.

Jaishankar's Diplomatic Blitz

While the official statement remained neutral, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar went into overdrive. Jaishankar launched a flurry of calls with Gulf leaders, Iranian FM Seyed Abbas Araghchi, and Israeli counterpart Gideon Sa'ar, stressing India's alarm over the "escalating situation" and pushing for dialogue and diplomacy.

The Priorities: Clear and Unmistakable

If you read between the diplomatic lines, India's priorities are crystal clear:

Priority 1: Indian Diaspora Safety

India has about 10 million people in the Gulf region. This isn't just a number—it's 10 million voters, 10 million families back home depending on remittances, 10 million reasons why this conflict matters viscerally to Indian domestic politics.

Nearly 3,000 Indian students are currently in Iran, of whom around 2,000 are from the Kashmir Valley. The Indian diaspora in Israel comprises over 41,000 people. The Indian Embassy in Tehran issued urgent advisories. The Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi issued an advisory for Indian students in the UAE to avoid unnecessary travel. The Ministry of Civil Aviation set up a 24×7 Passenger Assistance Control Room.

Priority 2: Energy Security

The region supplies nearly 60% of India's energy imports. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz. That's a chokepoint India cannot afford to see shut for long.

"Oil purchases from Russia dropped from 36.3% in the last quarter of 2025 to 9% in January 2026," meaning India needs alternative sources urgently, possibly Venezuela, Angola, and Nigeria. "It will be a very expensive energy regime in the coming days," warned policy expert Pushparaj Deshpande.

Priority 3: Regional Stability

India has investments, trade relationships, and strategic partnerships across West Asia. Chaos is bad for business. Chaos is bad for security. Chaos creates unpredictability that India, as a rising power, cannot afford.

What India Did NOT Do

Here's what's also revealing:

India did not:

Condemn the strikes as violations of international law (unlike Brazil, Russia, China, Spain, Norway)
Support the strikes as legitimate self-defence (unlike the US, UK, and eventually Canada)
Call for regime change in Iran
Offer military support to any party
Take a strong moral stand either way

Some critics, like international affairs expert Sanjay Kapoor, argued: "India could have taken a moral stand". But India chose pragmatism over principles. And there are reasons for that.

The India Dilemma: Why We Can't Pick Sides

India's position isn't fence-sitting. It's a strategic calculation based on competing interests that pull in different directions.

Relationship with Israel: Deepening Security Ties

India and Israel have a "special strategic partnership." The waves of airstrikes follow closely on the heels of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's high-profile visit to Israel, where the two sides elevated their ties.

Israel provides India with:

Advanced defence technology
Intelligence cooperation
Cybersecurity partnerships
Agricultural innovation
Counter-terrorism expertise

India cannot afford to alienate Israel.Especially when Pakistan and China are on our borders.

Relationship with Iran: Strategic Depth and Connectivity

But India also needs Iran.

Chabahar Port: India's gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, bypassing Pakistan
Energy imports: Historically significant, though reduced due to US sanctions
Regional balance: Iran is a counterweight to Pakistan's influence in Afghanistan
Cultural and historical ties: Dating back millennia

Lose Iran, and India loses strategic depth in its own neighborhood.

Relationship with Gulf States: Economic Lifeline

Then there's the Gulf Arab states, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman.

India's relations with the Gulf Arab states have strengthened significantly since Modi assumed office in 2014, evolving beyond a traditional buyer–seller dynamic into broader economic collaboration and political alignment.

These countries:

Host 10 million Indian workers sending billions in remittances
Supply most of India's oil and gas
Are major investors in Indian infrastructure and startups
Are increasingly aligned with Israel against Iran

If India picks Iran over the Gulf, we lose economically. If we pick the Gulf over Iran, we lose strategically.

Relationship with the United States: Complex Partnership

The US is India's strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific. Quad member. Defence cooperation. Technology transfer. Countering China. But the US also has a history of regime-change operations that India has consistently opposed, from Iraq to Libya to Syria. India believes in sovereignty and non-interference. Supporting this operation means endorsing a principle India has historically rejected.

The Non-Aligned Instinct

There's also something deeper: India's foreign policy DNA. Since Nehru, India has prided itself on strategic autonomy, not getting trapped in other people's wars, maintaining the ability to talk to everyone, being a bridge rather than choosing camps.

That instinct is alive. Even if the world is increasingly forcing binary choices.

What This Crisis Reveals About India's Foreign Policy

This isn't just about one crisis. It's a test case for how India navigates a multipolar world where everyone wants you to pick a side.

The Strengths of India's Approach

1. Flexibility

By not taking a strong stance, India maintains relationships with all parties. Jaishankar can call both Tehran and Tel Aviv, both Riyadh and Washington. That's diplomatic capital.

2. Focus on National Interest

As former ambassador Trigunayat stressed, "We have about 10 million people in the region. Their welfare is of utmost importance. If the Strait of Hormuz is closed, navigation will be disrupted, energy security will be impacted, and prices will skyrocket". India's response prioritizes tangible national interests—diaspora safety, energy security, and regional stability over abstract principles.

3. Diplomatic Credibility

Because India doesn't automatically align with one bloc, when India speaks, people listen. India can mediate. India can bridge divides. That's soft power.

The Limitations of India's Approach

1. Moral Ambiguity

When a sovereign nation is attacked, when civilians die, when international law is potentially violated, India's silence on these issues can be read as tacit acceptance. Critics argue "India could have taken a moral stand" without necessarily picking sides militarily.

2. Limited Influence

India can call for dialogue. But can India actually shape outcomes? Can India stop escalation? Probably not. Our voice matters, but our leverage is limited. We're not powerful enough to enforce our preferences. We're just trying to manage the fallout.

3. Exposure to Rapid Changes

As of now, India has not decided on the evacuation of its citizens from West Asia, as the airspace is closed and a sea route exit would be impossible. If the situation deteriorates rapidly, which it could - India might find itself scrambling. We have no military presence in the region. No bases. No rapid deployment capability for large-scale evacuations.

We're dependent on the goodwill of host countries. That's vulnerability.

4. The Costs of Neutrality

Here's the uncomfortable truth: in a polarized world, neutrality can make everyone unhappy.

The West might see India as unreliable, not standing up for "rules-based order" when it matters.
Iran might see India as too close to Israel and the US, not condemning aggression strongly enough.
Israel might wonder if India will support them in crunch moments or always hedge.
Trying to please everyone can mean satisfying no one.

The Bigger Picture: What's at Stake Globally

This isn't just about Iran. It's about the post-Cold War international order unraveling in real time.

The Death of Multilateralism

The UN Secretary-General called the attacks a grave threat to international peace. But the UN is powerless. The Security Council can't act. The International Court of Justice has no enforcement mechanism.

When the US, architect of the post-WWII order, conducts regime change operations unilaterally, what does that say about the "rules-based international order" it claims to defend?

The Return of Great Power Competition

This crisis has Russia and China on one side, the US and its allies on the other. The world is splitting into camps again, not quite Cold War 2.0, but definitely not the "end of history" either. Analysts are watching whether this conflict could derail US-China diplomatic engagement, including Trump's planned visit to Beijing later this month.

Oil, Energy, and Economic Shocks

Iran closed Hormuz. OPEC was set to meet to decide on increasing production, hoping to avoid severe oil price rises. Markets are bracing for volatility. For energy-import-dependent countries like India, China, Japan, and South Korea—this is existential. Energy security isn't abstract. It's the lifeblood of economic growth.,

The Middle East Power Vacuum

If Iran's regime collapses, what comes next?

CFR expert Ray Takeyh argues: "Bombing a regime out of extinction is rarely an effective strategy. The Islamic Republic is an ideological system with a multi-layered elite and base of support. The theocracy will likely survive the latest bombing, battered and bruised, but standing".

But even if the regime survives, it's weakened. That creates opportunities for ISIS resurgence, sectarian violence, proxy wars, and regional instability that could last decades.

Hezbollah, weakened after Israeli attacks, might not respond as expected. "For decades, Hezbollah's potential role was always a consideration. Those assumptions no longer hold".

The regional balance is shifting. And no one knows what the new equilibrium will look like.

What Should India Do? A Policy Recommendation

Given all this complexity, what's the right path for India?

Short-Term: Protect and Prepare

1. Diaspora Safety Must Be Priority One

Establish clear evacuation protocols, land routes through Jordan for those in Israel, commercial flights where possible, and emergency chartered flights if needed
Deploy rapid response teams from the Indian Navy and Air Force on standby
Create real-time communication channels with all Indian nationals in the region
Set up 24/7 helplines (already done, but expand capacity)

Currently, no evacuation decision has been made and air space closures complicate options. This needs immediate attention.

2. Energy Contingency Planning

Diversify oil sources aggressively, Venezuela, Angola, Nigeria, Brazil
Increase strategic petroleum reserves
Fast-track renewable energy investments to reduce dependence
Negotiate long-term contracts with stable suppliers

3. Diplomatic Engagement Without Taking Sides

Continue what Jaishankar is doing, talk to everyone, offer to mediate if asked, but don't align militarily or politically with any camp.

Medium-Term: Build Strategic Autonomy

1. Develop Independent Evacuation Capabilities

India needs:

A permanent naval presence in the Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf
Agreements with friendly nations for emergency base access
Rapid deployment forces trained for non-combatant evacuation operations
Strategic airlift capacity

The 1991 parallel is haunting. Back then, we converted Air India planes and relied on Iraqi goodwill to evacuate 176,000 people over two months. Today, we have 10 million Indians in the region, and we still have no dedicated evacuation infrastructure.

Yes, we've conducted successful evacuations since then, Yemen in 2015, Sudan in 2023.

But these were relatively small operations from single countries with functioning airports and cooperative governments.

What happens when multiple countries close airspace simultaneously? When are no sea routes safe? When we need to evacuate not 20,000 but 2 million people? We can't keep depending on others' goodwill when our citizens are in danger.

2. Strengthen Regional Partnerships

Deepen ties with Oman (the key mediator)
Maintain strong relationships with all Gulf states
Keep Chabahar Port operational (requires delicate Iran diplomacy)
Don't let Israel relationship come at the cost of Iran relationship or vice versa

3. Invest in Middle East Expertise

India needs better intelligence, better analysis, better understanding of Middle East dynamics. We need Arabists, Iran specialists, Israel experts in our diplomatic corps and think tanks. We're a major stakeholder in this region. We need to act like it.

Long-Term: Help Shape the New Order

1. Champion a New Security Architecture for West Asia

India should propose (perhaps with Oman, UAE, and others) a regional security dialogue that includes all stakeholders: Iran, Gulf states, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, and major powers.

The current model is broken. Someone needs to propose alternatives. Why not India?

2. Position India as the "Responsible Rising Power"

While others choose wars, India chooses diplomacy. While others impose solutions, India respects sovereignty. This is our brand. We should own it. Not in a preachy way. But in a practical, problem-solving way that makes India the go-to partner for conflict resolution.

3. Build Economic Interdependence

The more India is integrated into the regional economy through trade, investment, infrastructure, and technology partnerships, the more leverage we have, and the more incentive others have to keep us safe.

Economic interdependence isn't just about prosperity. It's about security.

The Hard Truth: Limits of Indian Power

But let's also be honest about what India cannot do.

We cannot:

Stop this war
Protect the entire region
Replace American or Chinese influence
Guarantee oil supplies indefinitely
Evacuate 10 million people quickly if needed

India is a rising power. But we're not yet a great power. We have interests without always having the capacity to secure them. We have preferences without always having the leverage to enforce them.

As experts noted, India's immediate priority is contingency planning, "how we provide assistance if escalation intensifies". That's the reality. We're in damage control mode, not driving the agenda.

And that should bother us because this crisis won't be the last. The Middle East will keep erupting. And every time it does, India will scramble to protect its people and interests.

At some point, we need to move from reactive to proactive. From managing crises to preventing them. From observer to architect.

But that requires capabilities - military, economic, diplomatic - that take decades to build.

Conclusion: 33 Years of Economic Growth, Zero Strategic Capacity

In 1991, India's GDP was $270 billion. Today it's $3.7 trillion. We've built expressways, metros, tech giants, and space programs.

But when it comes to protecting our citizens in a regional war? We're still making the same desperate phone calls, issuing the same helpless advisories, and hoping others will let us evacuate our people.

That's not a rising power. That's a vulnerable giant.

The US-Israel strikes on Iran are not just another Middle East conflict. They're a stress test of the international order, a reshaping of regional power dynamics, and a reminder that in today's world, no one is insulated from distant wars.

For India, this crisis reveals both our strengths and vulnerabilities:

Strengths:

Diplomatic relationships across all camps
Clear prioritization of national interests
Ability to talk to everyone without being owned by anyone

Vulnerabilities:

10 million citizens in harm's way with limited evacuation capacity
Critical energy dependence on an unstable region
Influence without the power to shape outcomes

India's response, calling for restraint, prioritizing diaspora safety, and maintaining strategic ambiguity is rational given our constraints. But it's also insufficient for the long term.

We need to build the capabilities that match our ambitions. We need to develop the power that matches our exposure. We need to transition from a country that manages crises to one that can prevent them.

Because the next crisis is coming. And the one after that. And India will keep finding itself in the middle with interests at stake, people at risk, and difficult choices to make.

The question is: will we be better prepared next time? Or will we keep hoping that talking to everyone and offending no one is enough?

For now, all we can do is watch, protect our people, secure our energy, and hope that wiser heads prevail before this conflict consumes the region.

But hope is not a strategy. And in geopolitics, the unprepared pay the price.

In 1991, we were a poor country doing the best we could. In 2026, we're the 5th largest economy still doing the same thing.

That's not acceptable. And if this crisis doesn't force us to build real capacity, not just diplomatic finesse, but hard power, strategic infrastructure, and operational capability, then we're destined to repeat this cycle every time the Middle East erupts. Which, given history, is only a matter of time.

The situation is evolving rapidly. India's External Affairs Ministry continues diplomatic engagements. Indians in the region are advised to follow embassy guidance and register with Indian missions. This is a developing crisis, and policies will need to adapt as events unfold.

At Public Policy Puzzle, we're tracking this crisis and its implications for India. For more analysis on India's foreign policy challenges and strategic choices, join our community to make sense of an increasingly complex world.