Introduction
The Middle East is burning. As Israeli and American missiles rain down on Iranian soil, and as Tehran retaliates against Gulf targets, one question echoes through diplomatic corridors: Where does India stand?
Renowned political analyst, writer, and commentator Raju Parulekar pulls no punches as he uncovers the hidden truths behind Prime Minister Narendra Modi's controversial role in the escalating Iran-Israel war. With recent developments shaking the Middle East—including Israel's strikes, the death of key figures, U.S. involvement, and India's delicate balancing act between long-time friend Iran and its growing strategic ties with Israel—Parulekar reveals what he believes are the real secrets, calculations, and consequences of Modi's foreign policy choices.
This is the inside story of how India's carefully crafted neutrality unravelled in plain sight.
The Middle East is burning. As Israeli and American missiles rain down on Iranian soil, and as Tehran retaliates against Gulf targets, one question echoes through diplomatic corridors: Where does India stand?
Renowned political analyst, writer, and commentator Raju Parulekar pulls no punches as he uncovers the hidden truths behind Prime Minister Narendra Modi's controversial role in the escalating Iran-Israel war. With recent developments shaking the Middle East—including Israel's strikes, the death of key figures, U.S. involvement, and India's delicate balancing act between long-time friend Iran and its growing strategic ties with Israel—Parulekar reveals what he believes are the real secrets, calculations, and consequences of Modi's foreign policy choices.
This is the inside story of how India's carefully crafted neutrality unravelled in plain sight.
The Timing That Shocked the World
Just 48 hours before American and Israeli warplanes struck Iranian targets, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood in the Israeli Knesset, receiving a rockstar welcome from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . The imagery was striking: Modi and Netanyahu embracing, double handshakes, a grand parade, and an address to Israel's parliament that spoke of "full conviction" in standing with the Jewish state .
To the casual observer, it was a routine diplomatic visit. To those who understand the Middle East's pulse, it was a bombshell.
According to Parulekar, the timing was no coincidence. "In diplomacy," he argues, "timing is substance. A visit to one party on the eve of its attack on another is not equidistance. It is a choice."
International media was brutal in its assessment. Bloomberg described the trip as "suspicious and diplomatically risky" . An Israeli journalist writing in The Wire went further, calling Modi a "cheap advertisement" for Netanyahu's election campaign .
But was Modi simply naive, or was there a deeper calculation at play?
Just 48 hours before American and Israeli warplanes struck Iranian targets, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stood in the Israeli Knesset, receiving a rockstar welcome from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu . The imagery was striking: Modi and Netanyahu embracing, double handshakes, a grand parade, and an address to Israel's parliament that spoke of "full conviction" in standing with the Jewish state .
To the casual observer, it was a routine diplomatic visit. To those who understand the Middle East's pulse, it was a bombshell.
According to Parulekar, the timing was no coincidence. "In diplomacy," he argues, "timing is substance. A visit to one party on the eve of its attack on another is not equidistance. It is a choice."
International media was brutal in its assessment. Bloomberg described the trip as "suspicious and diplomatically risky" . An Israeli journalist writing in The Wire went further, calling Modi a "cheap advertisement" for Netanyahu's election campaign .
But was Modi simply naive, or was there a deeper calculation at play?
The Secret Calculations: What Parulekar Reveals
1. The Netanyahu-Trump Connection
Parulekar's analysis suggests that Modi's real objective extended far beyond Israel. The Prime Minister was reportedly seeking access to and favour with Donald Trump through Netanyahu . With Trump back in the White House and pursuing an aggressive policy toward Iran, aligning with Israel was seen as a strategic hedge—a way to secure Washington's goodwill as the U.S. redefines the Middle East.
"The underlying calculation," Parulekar notes, "appears to be that a regime change in Tehran—one more aligned with Israel and U.S. interests—could create new openings for India" .
1. The Netanyahu-Trump Connection
Parulekar's analysis suggests that Modi's real objective extended far beyond Israel. The Prime Minister was reportedly seeking access to and favour with Donald Trump through Netanyahu . With Trump back in the White House and pursuing an aggressive policy toward Iran, aligning with Israel was seen as a strategic hedge—a way to secure Washington's goodwill as the U.S. redefines the Middle East.
"The underlying calculation," Parulekar notes, "appears to be that a regime change in Tehran—one more aligned with Israel and U.S. interests—could create new openings for India" .
2. The Adani Factor
Perhaps the most explosive revelation in Parulekar's analysis concerns business interests. The Adani Group has significant investments in both Israel's Haifa Port and Iran's Chabahar Port . Critics question whether Modi requested Israel to safeguard these business interests during the bombings.
Remarkably, according to Indian media reports, Chabahar Port remained safe during the Israeli and American strikes . Was this coincidental, or were back-channel assurances secured?
Parulekar raises uncomfortable questions: Was national dignity compromised for business interests? Did Modi remain silent over the killing of Iranian leadership for the sake of corporate benefits?
Perhaps the most explosive revelation in Parulekar's analysis concerns business interests. The Adani Group has significant investments in both Israel's Haifa Port and Iran's Chabahar Port . Critics question whether Modi requested Israel to safeguard these business interests during the bombings.
Remarkably, according to Indian media reports, Chabahar Port remained safe during the Israeli and American strikes . Was this coincidental, or were back-channel assurances secured?
Parulekar raises uncomfortable questions: Was national dignity compromised for business interests? Did Modi remain silent over the killing of Iranian leadership for the sake of corporate benefits?
3. The Military Dimension
Unconfirmed reports cited by Parulekar suggest that during his Israel visit, Modi may have assured Netanyahu of possible support against Iran . More alarmingly, retired U.S. Colonel Douglas Macgregor claimed that American naval ships have been docking at Indian ports to unload equipment amid rising tensions with Iran .
If true, this would represent a fundamental shift in India's strategic posture—from non-alignment to active logistical support for U.S.-Israeli operations.
The Silence That Speaks Volumes
When Iran launched retaliatory strikes against American bases in Gulf countries, Modi promptly posted on X, condemning the attacks . But when the U.S. and Israel launched their strikes on Iran—killing not only military targets but reportedly 157 people at a girls' school in southern Iran—the Prime Minister said nothing .
The Ministry of External Affairs eventually expressed "deep concern," noting that the situation "evokes great anxiety" . But as Parulekar observes, "anxiety is not a foreign policy, and concern is not a position."
Sonia Gandhi, leader of the opposition Congress party, captured the stakes in a scathing opinion piece: "Silence, in this instance, is not neutral." She described the posture not as neutrality but as "abdication" and a "grave betrayal" of India's traditional balanced approach .
Parulekar agrees: "When the United Nations Charter was violated by an attack on a sovereign state's leader, India—which once championed non-alignment—had nothing to say. That is not the silence of careful diplomacy. It is the silence of a country that has painted itself into a corner."
Unconfirmed reports cited by Parulekar suggest that during his Israel visit, Modi may have assured Netanyahu of possible support against Iran . More alarmingly, retired U.S. Colonel Douglas Macgregor claimed that American naval ships have been docking at Indian ports to unload equipment amid rising tensions with Iran .
If true, this would represent a fundamental shift in India's strategic posture—from non-alignment to active logistical support for U.S.-Israeli operations.
The Silence That Speaks Volumes
When Iran launched retaliatory strikes against American bases in Gulf countries, Modi promptly posted on X, condemning the attacks . But when the U.S. and Israel launched their strikes on Iran—killing not only military targets but reportedly 157 people at a girls' school in southern Iran—the Prime Minister said nothing .
The Ministry of External Affairs eventually expressed "deep concern," noting that the situation "evokes great anxiety" . But as Parulekar observes, "anxiety is not a foreign policy, and concern is not a position."
Sonia Gandhi, leader of the opposition Congress party, captured the stakes in a scathing opinion piece: "Silence, in this instance, is not neutral." She described the posture not as neutrality but as "abdication" and a "grave betrayal" of India's traditional balanced approach .
Parulekar agrees: "When the United Nations Charter was violated by an attack on a sovereign state's leader, India—which once championed non-alignment—had nothing to say. That is not the silence of careful diplomacy. It is the silence of a country that has painted itself into a corner."
The Chabahar Gamble
Perhaps the most tangible victim of this policy shift is the Chabahar port—the crown jewel of Indian engagement with Iran. For years, India has cultivated this facility as a strategic asset: a gateway to Central Asia bypassing Pakistan, a counter to China's Gwadar port, and a critical node in the International North-South Transport Corridor .
India has invested over one billion dollars in Chabahar, betting that Iran would remain a reliable partner . But with Iran now viewing India as aligned with its enemies, these projects hang by a thread. Parulekar warns that in any post-conflict power struggle, Chabahar risks becoming a hostage to instability.
Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and others—are watching closely. China's Belt and Road Initiative offers them connectivity without the complications of a hostile Iran. Russia offers security cooperation. India offers a prime minister who cannot bring himself to utter a word about Iranian schoolgirls killed by U.S.-Israeli bombs .
Perhaps the most tangible victim of this policy shift is the Chabahar port—the crown jewel of Indian engagement with Iran. For years, India has cultivated this facility as a strategic asset: a gateway to Central Asia bypassing Pakistan, a counter to China's Gwadar port, and a critical node in the International North-South Transport Corridor .
India has invested over one billion dollars in Chabahar, betting that Iran would remain a reliable partner . But with Iran now viewing India as aligned with its enemies, these projects hang by a thread. Parulekar warns that in any post-conflict power struggle, Chabahar risks becoming a hostage to instability.
Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and others—are watching closely. China's Belt and Road Initiative offers them connectivity without the complications of a hostile Iran. Russia offers security cooperation. India offers a prime minister who cannot bring himself to utter a word about Iranian schoolgirls killed by U.S.-Israeli bombs .
The Double Standard
Parulekar meticulously documents the asymmetry in India's responses:
Gulf nations: Modi spoke with the UAE's president, "strongly condemned" the attacks on Gulf countries, and expressed solidarity with "all measures" the UAE deemed necessary .
Israel: The Prime Minister called Netanyahu, conveyed India's concerns, and called for an "early cessation of hostilities" .
Iran: No call to Tehran. No expression of concern for the violation of Iranian sovereignty. No words for the spiritual leader killed in the strike .
This double standard has not gone unnoticed in Tehran—or in the broader Muslim world.
A former Indian ambassador put it bluntly: "PM Modi's visit to Israel was wrongly timed and has completely ripped India off its neutrality. We are seen in the Israeli corner" .
Historical Contrasts That Sting
Indian National Congress leader Pawan Khera drew a devastating contrast with history that Parulekar highlights :
In 1994, when Western powers backed a resolution condemning India over Kashmir, Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao dispatched his ailing External Affairs Minister to Tehran. Iran's president blocked the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) move, and Pakistan's last serious attempt to internationalise Kashmir collapsed.
"That very 'friend of India' stands betrayed—bartered away to please the same Western powers that once thirsted for our blood," Khera said .
Parulekar asks: What would Iran's leaders think today, watching India embrace the very countries bombing their soil?
The Strategic Consequences
Loss of Strategic Autonomy
For decades, India cultivated a reputation for "strategic autonomy"—maintaining parallel relationships with Israel, Iran, and the Gulf states while avoiding entanglement in their conflicts . That carefully constructed edifice has crumbled in days.
By choosing sides, India has forfeited its ability to speak to all parties—precisely the capability it needs when nearly ten million Indian citizens live and work across the region . Their remittances, totalling approximately $129 billion in 2024—the highest globally—sustain countless families and bolster India's foreign exchange reserves .
Parulekar warns that while Gulf governments are unlikely to take official action against India over a state visit, risks to the diaspora often emerge informally: through social tensions, workplace bias, or stricter visa policies .
Energy Vulnerability
Two-thirds of India's crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz . With Iran threatening to close this maritime chokepoint, and with oil prices already crossing $100 a barrel, India's economy faces significant headwinds .
According to energy expert Daniel Yergin, "the world is looking at the biggest disruption in oil production in history as well as a resounding shock to global gas markets" .
The Middle Power Reality
Perhaps the most sobering aspect of Parulekar's analysis is what it reveals about India's actual standing in global politics.
Ashutosh Varshney, professor at Brown University, puts it starkly: "India under Modi has no influence over the U.S. And while it has come close to Israel, it is wholly unclear whether it can influence Israel either. India is currently a taker in world politics, not a maker. It is a middle power, not a vishwaguru" .
Parulekar echoes this sentiment: Great powers shape events. They are consulted before strikes, not after. They can speak to all sides because all sides need to speak to them. India today exhibits none of these attributes.
The Unanswered Questions
As the smoke rises over Tehran and missiles fly over the Gulf, Parulekar leaves us with haunting questions:
Did Modi have prior knowledge of the impending attack on Iran? Asaduddin Owaisi has openly questioned whether the Prime Minister was briefed in advance .
Was the visit to Israel a deliberate signal of alignment, or merely catastrophic timing?
What assurances, if any, were given to Netanyahu behind closed doors?
Can India ever regain Tehran's trust, or is the Chabahar project—and the billion dollars invested—permanently compromised?
What happens to the 10,000 Indians in Iran and the millions across the Gulf if the conflict widens?
The Bottom Line
Raju Parulekar's revelations paint a disturbing picture: a Prime Minister so eager to court Western and Israeli favour that he sacrificed decades of carefully cultivated strategic relationships. A foreign policy so tilted that it has rendered India irrelevant in the very neighbourhood where its interests are most acute.
The Modi government has invested heavily in the narrative of India as an "emerging great power." But as Parulekar demonstrates, there is a gap between self-perception and reality.
In this crisis, India's diaspora faces an uncertain future. Its energy supplies are vulnerable. Its connectivity projects are at risk. Its voice carries no weight because everyone knows which side it is on.
Here is the harshest arithmetic: whichever side prevails in this war, India loses. If Iran and its allies—China, Russia—emerge strengthened, India will face an unhappy Tehran and a Central Asia oriented toward Beijing. If the U.S. and Israel win, they will reshape the region according to their interests, not India's.
The Quad, I2U2, IMEC—all place India in supporting roles, not leadership positions.
Parulekar's final verdict is damning: "That is not a great power. That is not even a middle power. That is irrelevance—and Modi's India has earned it."
Disclaimer: This blog synthesises and analyses views expressed by Raju Parulekar and other commentators as reflected in search results. It does not claim to represent official government positions.
Parulekar meticulously documents the asymmetry in India's responses:
Gulf nations: Modi spoke with the UAE's president, "strongly condemned" the attacks on Gulf countries, and expressed solidarity with "all measures" the UAE deemed necessary .
Israel: The Prime Minister called Netanyahu, conveyed India's concerns, and called for an "early cessation of hostilities" .
Iran: No call to Tehran. No expression of concern for the violation of Iranian sovereignty. No words for the spiritual leader killed in the strike .
This double standard has not gone unnoticed in Tehran—or in the broader Muslim world.
A former Indian ambassador put it bluntly: "PM Modi's visit to Israel was wrongly timed and has completely ripped India off its neutrality. We are seen in the Israeli corner" .
Historical Contrasts That Sting
Indian National Congress leader Pawan Khera drew a devastating contrast with history that Parulekar highlights :
In 1994, when Western powers backed a resolution condemning India over Kashmir, Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao dispatched his ailing External Affairs Minister to Tehran. Iran's president blocked the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) move, and Pakistan's last serious attempt to internationalise Kashmir collapsed.
"That very 'friend of India' stands betrayed—bartered away to please the same Western powers that once thirsted for our blood," Khera said .
Parulekar asks: What would Iran's leaders think today, watching India embrace the very countries bombing their soil?
The Strategic Consequences
Loss of Strategic Autonomy
For decades, India cultivated a reputation for "strategic autonomy"—maintaining parallel relationships with Israel, Iran, and the Gulf states while avoiding entanglement in their conflicts . That carefully constructed edifice has crumbled in days.
By choosing sides, India has forfeited its ability to speak to all parties—precisely the capability it needs when nearly ten million Indian citizens live and work across the region . Their remittances, totalling approximately $129 billion in 2024—the highest globally—sustain countless families and bolster India's foreign exchange reserves .
Parulekar warns that while Gulf governments are unlikely to take official action against India over a state visit, risks to the diaspora often emerge informally: through social tensions, workplace bias, or stricter visa policies .
Energy Vulnerability
Two-thirds of India's crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz . With Iran threatening to close this maritime chokepoint, and with oil prices already crossing $100 a barrel, India's economy faces significant headwinds .
According to energy expert Daniel Yergin, "the world is looking at the biggest disruption in oil production in history as well as a resounding shock to global gas markets" .
The Middle Power Reality
Perhaps the most sobering aspect of Parulekar's analysis is what it reveals about India's actual standing in global politics.
Ashutosh Varshney, professor at Brown University, puts it starkly: "India under Modi has no influence over the U.S. And while it has come close to Israel, it is wholly unclear whether it can influence Israel either. India is currently a taker in world politics, not a maker. It is a middle power, not a vishwaguru" .
Parulekar echoes this sentiment: Great powers shape events. They are consulted before strikes, not after. They can speak to all sides because all sides need to speak to them. India today exhibits none of these attributes.
The Unanswered Questions
As the smoke rises over Tehran and missiles fly over the Gulf, Parulekar leaves us with haunting questions:
Did Modi have prior knowledge of the impending attack on Iran? Asaduddin Owaisi has openly questioned whether the Prime Minister was briefed in advance .
Was the visit to Israel a deliberate signal of alignment, or merely catastrophic timing?
What assurances, if any, were given to Netanyahu behind closed doors?
Can India ever regain Tehran's trust, or is the Chabahar project—and the billion dollars invested—permanently compromised?
What happens to the 10,000 Indians in Iran and the millions across the Gulf if the conflict widens?
The Bottom Line
Raju Parulekar's revelations paint a disturbing picture: a Prime Minister so eager to court Western and Israeli favour that he sacrificed decades of carefully cultivated strategic relationships. A foreign policy so tilted that it has rendered India irrelevant in the very neighbourhood where its interests are most acute.
The Modi government has invested heavily in the narrative of India as an "emerging great power." But as Parulekar demonstrates, there is a gap between self-perception and reality.
In this crisis, India's diaspora faces an uncertain future. Its energy supplies are vulnerable. Its connectivity projects are at risk. Its voice carries no weight because everyone knows which side it is on.
Here is the harshest arithmetic: whichever side prevails in this war, India loses. If Iran and its allies—China, Russia—emerge strengthened, India will face an unhappy Tehran and a Central Asia oriented toward Beijing. If the U.S. and Israel win, they will reshape the region according to their interests, not India's.
The Quad, I2U2, IMEC—all place India in supporting roles, not leadership positions.
Parulekar's final verdict is damning: "That is not a great power. That is not even a middle power. That is irrelevance—and Modi's India has earned it."
Disclaimer: This blog synthesises and analyses views expressed by Raju Parulekar and other commentators as reflected in search results. It does not claim to represent official government positions.
