Amid the escalating Israel-Iran conflict and US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the international community expressed deep concern and called for de-escalation. Responses from South Asian countries were marked by caution, reflecting efforts to maintain neutrality and avoid provoking the United States.
Soon after the attacks, Indian Prime Minister Modi spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and reiterated calls for immediate de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy to restore regional peace and stability. Modi also spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, urging him to show restraint. India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar also held talks with his Israeli and Iranian counterparts Gideon Sa’ar and Abbas Araghchi, urging restraint and a return to diplomacy. In response to the regional instability, the Indian government launched an evacuation operation named Operation Sindhu, evacuating over 2,000 Indian nationals from Iran.
The Indian government has shown reluctance to categorically criticize Israel or the United States, and New Delhi also abstained from UN resolutions and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) resolutions condemning Israeli actions. This reflects India’s growing alignment with Israel, driven by deepening defense and counterterrorism ties. It is also important to note that, Israel offered unequivocal support to India. Notably, Israeli drones and weapons systems were used during the war with Pakistan. These factors explain why India chose to remain neutral, or at times silent, during the conflict, a position that indirectly favored Israel. The nature of India-Israel relations has evolved significantly, further influenced by strategic alignment with the United States. At the same time, India has strong civilizational and economic ties with Iran and remains keen on collaborating on strategic projects like Chabahar port. New Delhi’s official responses reflect the pressure to preserve ties with the United States and avoid provoking the Trump administration, particularly at a time when trade negotiations are underway. However, opposition parties within India have criticized the government’s reluctance to condemn US and Israeli attacks, accusing it of compromising principles for geopolitical convenience. The Indian National Congress and leftist parties condemned the attacks and criticized the ruling BJP’s pro-Israel stance. The government’s position has also faced domestic criticism, with many questioning India’s credibility as a moral power. Critics argue that India’s repeated hesitation to take a clear position undermines its longstanding image as a principled voice in international affairs.
Pakistan’s response to the recent escalation was measured and cautious, though it could also be seen as inconsistent. A day after announcing its intent to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, Pakistan sharply criticized the United States for its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling these a violation of international law and a threat to regional peace. Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif supported the government’s stance, crediting Trump’s peace efforts for halting major confrontations one after the other, referring to the escalations between India and Pakistan as well as the Iran-Israel conflict. Pakistan’s decision to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize triggered backlash and protests, with opposition parties, including PTI, condemning the government. Pakistani politicians have asked the government to reconsider its decision. Following the US attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed strong solidarity with Iran during a call with President Pezeshkian and condemned the US strikes, calling these violations of international law. Sharif affirmed Iran’s right to self-defense and called for urgent de-escalation through dialogue and diplomacy. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, speaking in Parliament, dismissed claims suggesting that Pakistan had any plans to attack Israel. Strategically, Islamabad seeks to balance its ties with Washington which is extremely critical for IMF support and military cooperation while maintaining stable relations with neighboring Iran. Furthermore, Pakistan’s responses are rooted in security concerns as it remains wary of Israel’s assertive aerial presence near its border. Pakistan’s Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir’s recent visit to the United States and Trump’s apparent openness to re-engage may all reflect calculated moves by both sides. In the current geopolitical landscape, US Central Command (CENTCOM) sees Pakistan as a significant partner. For Pakistan, this moment offers an opportunity to assert its geopolitical weight in the eyes of the United States.
Other countries in the region, like Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, also called for de-escalation. Bangladesh urged the UN and international community to promote peace through dialogue and diplomacy. Expressing concern over attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, Dhaka warned of further regional destabilization and stressed adherence to international norms. Sri Lanka also called for de-escalation, urging all parties to pursue dialogue and diplomacy. The Sri Lankan government’s statement avoided categorically naming either Israel or Iran, drawing criticism from opposition parties who condemned the response as weak and lacking a clear commitment to international law. Afghanistan explicitly named the United States in its condemnation, and this stance can be attributed to the Taliban-led government’s strategy to align itself more closely with countries opposed to US influence in the region.
The responses from South Asia reflect efforts to maintain a delicate balance. The region is heavily dependent on the Middle East for energy security, remittances and economic ties, prompting it to prioritize economic and political priorities over other factors. Tensions in the Strait of Hormuz pose a significant strategic risk, as any disruption could lead to supply shocks and increased fuel prices. South Asian countries lack the diplomatic clout to constructively intervene or influence the trajectory of the Iran-Israel conflict, which limits their ability to shape outcomes, and their approach reflects an acknowledgement of this limitation. Their restrained responses largely reflect a desire not to antagonize the United States and closely monitor the situation and coordinate with other regional partners to assess potential outcomes and scenarios before taking a clear position. This is particularly evident given the unpredictability and personalized nature of diplomacy under the Trump administration, which makes any policy outcome difficult to anticipate. The responses from the region reflect that realpolitik considerations clearly outweigh ideological or moral stances.
Regional powers in South Asia have also often expressed concern over nuclear proliferation, recognizing it as a key threat to regional stability and their strategic interests. The prospect of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would complicate the already fragile security environment. During the recent escalation, India and Pakistan maintained active coordination and communication with the Gulf states. This engagement reflects a broader understanding that any conflict involving Iran and Israel could have far-reaching consequences for the entire region, particularly for the Gulf states that serve as key nodes in global energy supply chains. Maintaining dialogue with Gulf partners is not only essential for safeguarding their economic and energy interests but also for reinforcing their strategic relevance in a rapidly shifting geopolitical landscape.
Another key factor influencing South Asian responses to conflicts in the Middle East is the presence of heterogeneous religious communities and the risk of sectarian polarization within their own societies. Governments are often cautious about overtly taking sides in regional disputes as doing so could trigger domestic tensions. While broader geopolitical and economic considerations remain central, official statements are often carefully calibrated to avoid provoking internal divisions.
In short, the overall response of South Asia to the crisis reveals a cautious, interest-driven approach shaped by structural limitations, evolving strategic priorities and the pressures of a complex geopolitical landscape.
