The Gulf War: A Global Crisis with Emerging Winners

Israel’s strategic behaviour is shaped by a combination of historical experience, geopolitical constraints, and security imperatives. Since its creation in 1948, Israel has developed a “garrison state” mentality, driven by a persistent perception of existential threat. This has led to a doctrine emphasizing pre-emptive strikes, intelligence dominance, and maintaining qualitative military superiority over adversaries.

Key structural limitations include the lack of spatial depth and demographic mass, which are essential attributes of major powers. To compensate, Israel has built deep strategic ties with the United States and leveraged global Jewish diaspora networks for political, economic, and technological support. Its advanced intelligence apparatus and technological edge are outcomes of this approach.

Additionally, ideological constructs such as the idea of a “Greater Israel” reflect a strategic aspiration to overcome geographic constraints. For example, its repeated engagements in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria demonstrate a pattern of neutralizing perceived threats beyond its borders. Thus, Israel’s behaviour is not episodic but rooted in enduring structural and psychological factors.

The US-Israel relationship is central because it provides Israel with military, economic, and diplomatic backing, enabling it to sustain prolonged conflicts. The United States acts as a force multiplier by supplying advanced weaponry, intelligence sharing, and veto power in international forums such as the United Nations Security Council.

From a political perspective, the influence of the Jewish diaspora in the US, including its role in media, finance, and electoral funding, has historically ensured bipartisan support for Israel. However, recent developments such as the Gaza conflict have begun to erode unconditional support, with segments of American society questioning the costs and moral implications of this alliance.

Strategically, the US sees Israel as a key ally in containing Iran and maintaining regional balance. However, as highlighted in the article, there is a growing divergence of interests. For instance, while Israel may prioritize the destruction of Iran’s capabilities, the US must consider global economic stability, energy markets, and its competition with China and Russia. This asymmetry makes the relationship both crucial and increasingly complex.

Iran’s asymmetrical strategy is based on avoiding direct conventional confrontation and instead targeting vulnerabilities in the economic, geopolitical, and infrastructural domains. Recognizing its military limitations, Iran leverages tools such as proxy groups, cyber operations, and disruption of critical trade routes to impose costs on its adversaries.

A key component is its control over the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global oil supply passes. Even limited disruptions—such as drone attacks on Gulf infrastructure—can trigger global energy price spikes and economic instability. This creates pressure not only on the US but also on its Gulf allies, whose economies depend heavily on stability and investor confidence.

For example, past attacks on Saudi oil facilities (like Abqaiq in 2019) demonstrated how low-cost interventions can yield disproportionate strategic impact. By targeting "pain points" rather than engaging in direct warfare, Iran effectively shifts the battleground to areas where the US and its allies are more vulnerable, including financial markets and global supply chains.

A prolonged conflict in West Asia would have far-reaching second- and third-order effects on the global system. Economically, disruptions in oil supply chains—particularly through the Strait of Hormuz—could lead to inflationary pressures, rising energy prices, and fiscal strain on major economies like the United States. This would reverse recent gains in global economic recovery.

Geopolitically, the conflict risks weakening US global leadership. The reluctance of NATO allies to support the US highlights growing divisions within the Western bloc. Meanwhile, rivals like China and Russia stand to gain by positioning themselves as alternative power centres. For instance, China’s role in mediating regional conflicts and Russia’s energy diplomacy could be strengthened.

However, the analysis must also consider that chaos in the region may consolidate Israel’s relative dominance, as suggested in the article. Yet, this comes at the cost of long-term instability, radicalization, and humanitarian crises. Thus, while short-term strategic gains may accrue to some actors, the overall global impact is likely to be destabilizing and detrimental to collective security.

Regional instability in West Asia has a direct bearing on both global economic systems and India’s national interests. Globally, disruptions in oil and gas supply chains affect energy prices, which in turn influence inflation, trade balances, and economic growth across countries. For example, even minor tensions in the Strait of Hormuz can cause significant volatility in global oil markets.

For India, the implications are particularly acute. India imports a substantial portion of its energy requirements from the Gulf region. Any disruption leads to increased import bills, fiscal stress, and potential inflation. Additionally, India has a diaspora of over 9 million in the Gulf, whose safety and remittances are crucial for the Indian economy.

A real-world example can be seen during the Gulf War and subsequent regional crises, where India had to undertake large-scale evacuation operations such as Operation Raahat (Yemen, 2015). Thus, instability in West Asia is not a distant concern but a critical factor shaping India’s economic security and foreign policy priorities.

India faces a complex strategic dilemma due to its strong defence and technological partnership with Israel, juxtaposed with its dependence on West Asian stability. As a policymaker, the approach should be guided by strategic autonomy and a careful balancing of interests.

First, India must diversify its energy sources and reduce overdependence on the Gulf. Simultaneously, it should enhance diplomatic engagement with all regional actors, including Iran and Gulf countries, to maintain neutrality. Strengthening maritime security in the Indian Ocean and ensuring safe sea lanes would also be critical.

Second, India should adopt a calibrated distancing from overtly aggressive actions by Israel that destabilize the region, while continuing cooperation in non-controversial areas like technology and innovation. For example, India has historically balanced relations with both Israel and Palestine, as well as Iran and the US.

Way forward: India must pursue a multi-vector foreign policy that safeguards its energy security, diaspora welfare, and regional stability, while avoiding entanglement in great power conflicts. This pragmatic approach aligns with India’s long-term strategic interests.