&w=3840&q=100)
India pursuing FTAs with mature, rule-bound markets: S Jaishankar
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has termed India's bilateral trade agreements as the 'space to watch', and said New Delhi has, over the past 11 years, pursued trade pacts with countries that have 'more mature markets' and are more 'transparent and rule bound' compared to East Asian countries.
Jaishankar said India is now more interested in key free trade agreements. He said the one with the United Kingdom is more or less finalised, the one with the European Union is in advanced stages of negotiation, and there have been several rounds of discussions between Indian and American officials for a bilateral trade agreement.
In an interview to public broadcaster DD India, a link to which the minister posted on X on Saturday, Jaishankar said that in the years following economic reforms, most of India's trade agreements were with Southeast Asian nations, which 'skewed the balance' as several of these economies competed with India and did not provide market access. It was important to make the correction and reach an understanding with more mature markets, which are more transparent and rule bound.
Jaishankar said India's trade pacts with the United Arab Emirates and Australia are significant achievements, describing New Delhi's push for FTAs as the 'space to watch'. In 2019, India did not join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trading bloc that comprises the 10-member ASEAN grouping and other Asia-Pacific economies, including China, Australia and Japan.
He said India has, in the past 11 years, systematically tried to 'deepen our posture, our strategic posture, to have good relations with all major countries, but also other regions, so that we get into the optimal position'.
In the past 11 years, the EAM said, the consistent theme underpinning India's foreign policy has been planning for a multipolar world, which India not only desires as it gives it a higher profile and more influence. 'But it is not just the question of our wishes, that is the direction in which the world is moving,' he said, which is why New Delhi, despite enormous pressure on it, maintained its relationship with Russia, he added.
About India's ties with the US, he said, 'Where the US is concerned, yes, there is unpredictability, therefore at a systemic level, you stabilise it with as many linkages and relationships as possible.'
On India's relations with China, Jaishankar said, 'With China, if you have to stand up to that country and we have had some very difficult periods, (and) so it is important to prepare the capabilities.' The minister said a 'really perplexing' aspect of India's China policy before 2014 was the 'complete neglect of our border infrastructure in the previous decades'.
'To have a China policy and neglect your border infrastructure was absurd,' he said. 'And that is one of the things which has changed. We have today that standing up, in defence of our national interests, along the LAC. It is because we have built the border infrastructure to make that possible,' Jaishankar said.
On India's ties with its immediate neighbours, Jaishankar said that India 'should not expect smooth sailing' all the time. He said New Delhi has attempted to shape a 'collective interest' to build an inherent stability in relationships, irrespective of changes in regimes. At the end of the day, 'the logic every one of our neighbours must realise' is that working with India will 'give you benefits', and not working with India 'has a cost', he said.
'Some take longer to realise, some understand it better. One exception of course is Pakistan, because it has defined its identity under the army, in a way it has an in-built hostility in it. So if you put Pakistan aside, the logic will apply everywhere else,' the EAM said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Print
43 minutes ago
- The Print
Iran has fewer options & more risks than before. Its choices will affect all of Middle East
At the heart of this tectonic move was the deployment of the most penetrative weapon in the US arsenal—the GBU-57—used to target Iran's most fortified nuclear sites: the deeply hidden Fordow, along with Natanz and Isfahan. And with this strike, Trump continues the unbroken legacy of American presidents authorising military action in the Middle East. In a dramatic escalation this morning, the United States formally entered the war against Iran. While President Donald Trump had been publicly mulling his decision with vague references to a 'two-week window,' American B-2 bombers were already airborne—on a mission that would mark a seismic shift in the current US foreign policy. This marks a stunning departure for Trump, who won re-election on a promise that emphasised avoiding foreign military entanglements. Though initially hinting at restraint, he has now thrust the US directly into a volatile regional war. His abrupt mid-speech exit from the G7 summit in Canada suggested that something was brewing. That speculation was tempered by his two-week 'thinking period'—but all such ambiguity vanished with this morning's airstrikes, surprising Republicans, Democrats, and even Trump's own Make America Great Again (MAGA) base. Strategic deception The operation bore signs of strategic deception. Around 11 pm US time, six B-2 bombers were spotted heading west over the Pacific, refuelling midair near Hawaii, which now appear to have been decoys. In reality, another formation flew east from Missouri. These three B-2s undertook a 37-hour round-trip mission, refuelling midair before releasing a full payload of GBU-57s on Fordow. Each B-2 can carry two GBU-57s, suggesting that at least six of these 'Massive Ordnance Penetrators' (MOPs) were used. Fordow, located beneath a mountain and engineered to withstand conventional attacks, had been enriching uranium to 60 per cent—just short of weapons-grade—according to the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report. This is the first time the GBU-57 has been used in combat. Weighing 30,000 pounds and capable of drilling through 200 feet of reinforced concrete, it's the 'grandfather of all bunker busters.' Until now, only its smaller cousin (GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast) had seen combat use, notably in Afghanistan. In his address to the nation, Trump praised the military's precision and confirmed all aircraft had returned safely, with no American casualties. But has Fordow's enrichment capacity truly been neutralised? While initial Battle Damage Assessments (BDAs) are emerging from satellite providers like Maxar, they cannot fully reveal what occurred 200-300 feet underground. Preliminary reports and Iranian statements suggest that the enriched uranium (Iran has over 400 kilograms spread across different sites) was moved to safer locations in advance, perhaps in anticipation of an imminent strike. It's worth recalling that during Israel's own operation—codenamed Rising Lion on 13 June—the focus was on bombing and disrupting the power supply to centrifuges at Natanz. However, neutralising Fordow was always beyond Israel's capability, underscoring the indispensable role of American airpower and assets. Also read: B-2 stealth bombers, 6 'bunker busters'—how US strikes on Iran unfolded What comes next? Iran is unlikely to accept this blow passively. Its initial response—launching a limited missile barrage on Israel—was muted, but Tehran has since declared that 'all options are open.' So what might those options be? The Iranian regime faces four broad paths: retaliate, collapse, accelerate its nuclear ambitions, or accept an 'off-ramp' by freezing enrichment for three years, as some backchannel discussions suggest. Yet, autocratic regimes are seldom inclined toward humility. Some form of face-saving retaliation seems inevitable before diplomacy can resume. Let's consider Iran's six primary retaliatory options, from most likely to most dangerous: Continue strikes on Israel: Iran still possesses around 1,200 missiles, both ballistic and hypersonic, and a substantial drone arsenal. It could continue targeting Israeli cities. This would serve domestic propaganda only, but would fall short of responding to a direct US attack. Activate Proxy Groups: Iran could mobilise Shia militant groups in Iraq, Syria, and Bahrain. However, with Hezbollah and Hamas significantly weakened, their capacity for meaningful retaliation may be limited too. That said, they are easy to launch and perhaps a safer option for wrecking instability while not playing with fire. Close the Strait of Hormuz: Iran's parliament has reportedly already approved the closure of this crucial oil corridor. But it amounts to mere signalling right now, as the final decision on the matter will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council. This critical waterway, however, has been seeing reduced shipping activity since tensions began to rise. A full closure would disrupt global oil supply and raise prices sharply. However, Oman shares maritime responsibility for the strait with respect to its management, and other regional players—concerned about oil stability—may oppose this move. Remember that oil prices are spiking already, and the region's sensitivity to that fluctuation remains imminent. Target US bases in Iraq: This remains the least dangerous way for Iran to hit back at the US. Iraq's weak defence posture and complex political landscape make it a vulnerable target, especially for indirect, deniable attacks, at best carried out by proxies. Iran had, in fact, targeted the Al Asad airbase in 2020, after the US killed Quds Force leader Qasem Soleimani. Strike the U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain: Such an act would be seen as a declaration of war. The risks of escalation would increase dramatically, and it would compel a decisive U.S. second response. Attack Centcom Headquarters in Qatar: Perhaps the most extreme scenario. A strike at the United States Central Command – popularly abbreviated as Centcom – here would turn a contained conflict into a full-scale war and draw in global actors. Iran is certainly not prepared to handle this escalation. Based on the current scenario, Iran is unlikely to risk options five or six. Tehran understands that provoking the world's most powerful military could lead to its own destruction, when an off-ramp now exists. Also read: Iran's brutal regime is facing a reckoning. Consequences of US attack will go beyond Tehran Trump's gamble President Trump appears to be betting that one powerful blow, paired with stern rhetoric and overwhelming military might, will push Iran toward the negotiating table. It's a plausible theory—but not a guaranteed outcome. What if Tehran refuses? What if, out of desperation or pride, the Iranian regime takes an unthinkable step? The Trump administration may believe it's holding all the cards. But history shows that military superiority doesn't always translate to strategic success—especially in a region as combustible as the one in question. Iran today finds itself in an unprecedented moment of strategic loneliness. Russia, once a close ally and a steady buyer of Iranian drones for use in Ukraine, has stayed noticeably quiet, preoccupied with its own unending war in Europe. China, too, has offered no more than muted diplomatic platitudes and some technical help, which is not enough to help Iran alter the situation. Even Iran's religious and ideological partners in the broader Muslim world – the Ummah brotherhood – have resorted to lip service. In this strategic vacuum, Iran has fewer options and more risks than ever before. Its choices will now shape not just its own future, but the stability of the entire region. The Indo-Pacific costs Perhaps the most underdiscussed consequence of this strike so far is the reorientation of American focus back to the Middle East, at the expense of its Indo-Pacific commitments. For India, this is concerning. Relations between Washington and New Delhi have already strained in recent months, through issues ranging from trade demands to perceived US interference in India-Pakistan matters. Washington's post-Operation Sindoor closeness with Pakistan further complicates the equation. India, which had hoped for a deepened US presence in Asia to counterbalance China, may now find itself watching from the sidelines for the time being, wondering whether America can multitask or reorient in time, or whether its Middle East preoccupation will yet again overshadow its Indo-Pacific convergence. Where things go from here is still uncertain. Trump campaigned against endless wars, and yet, we are back in a familiar place: American bombers over the Middle East, oil prices rising, and an adversary vowing revenge. This could be a one-time strike meant to cripple Iran's capabilities and offer an offramp for all. Or it could be the beginning of a much longer, bloodier cycle of retaliation. For now, the GBU-57 has officially entered the theatre of war, and the world just got a lot more dangerous. Swasti Rao is Consulting Editor (International and Strategic Affairs) at ThePrint. She tweets @swasrao. Views are personal. (Edited by Zoya Bhatti)


The Print
43 minutes ago
- The Print
From Qatar to Bahrain, mapping US military presence in Middle East as US enters Israel-Iran conflict
Fox News reported that Trump had spoken privately to its news presenter Sean Hannity, telling him that the US had 'completely obliterated' Iran's Fordow nuclear facility using six bunker-buster bombs dropped from three B-2 stealth bombers. Hannity further said that according to the president, the Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites were 'wiped out' by 30 Tomahawk missiles launched from US submarines stationed approximately 400 miles (643 km) away. US President Donald Trump confirmed the strikes in a series of posts on Truth Social, shortly before addressing the nation from the White House. He said that the operation targeted Iran's nuclear complexes at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan, describing it as a 'spectacular success' and warning that further action could follow, if Iran did not pursue peace. New Delhi: The United States carried out coordinated air and missile strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities early Sunday, marking a sharp escalation in regional tensions and signalling Washington's direct entry into the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. The Iranian government strongly condemned the strikes at the nuclear facilities, with Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi describing the attack as 'dangerous, lawless and criminal', and saying that Iran reserves the right to defend its sovereignty and interests. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have lasting consequences,' Araghchi wrote on X. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had warned Wednesday that US military involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict would trigger 'irreparable' consequences. Following Sunday's strikes, Iranian state television aired a regional map highlighting American military bases in the Middle East, accompanied by the message, 'Mr. Trump, you started it, and we will end it.' JUST IN: Iranian state television displays a graphic of U.S. bases in the Middle East titled: "Within the fire range of Iran." "Mr. Trump, you started it, and we will end it." — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) June 22, 2025 As the possibility of Iranian retaliation and a deepening US role in the rapidly worsening conflict looms, ThePrint maps the extensive network of US military bases and assets across the region and their positioning in the unfolding conflict. Also Read: Why Fordow, Natanz & Isfahan facilities struck by US are critical to Iran's nuclear ambitions 19 military bases In the latest available estimate, a US defence official told American think tank Council on Foreign Relations that as of June 2025, approximately 40,000 American soldiers were deployed across the Middle East, many of them aboard naval vessels operating under US Central Command (CENTCOM)—a significant reduction from the height of US military involvement in the region, when troop levels peaked at 160,000 in Iraq in 2007, and 100,000 in Afghanistan in 2011. The US currently maintains military facilities at no fewer than 19 sites across the Middle East, with at least eight reported to be permanent. These installations span countries, including Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the United Arab Emirates. While most fall under the jurisdiction of CENTCOM, key bases in Djibouti and Turkey, though part of separate regional commands, frequently support American military operations in the Middle East. All of these host countries mentioned above have formal basing agreements with the US, with the exception of Syria, where US deployments had long been opposed by the Bashar Assad government. However, in May 2025, diplomatic ties between the two countries began to thaw, after Trump announced plans to lift sanctions and move toward normalising relations. Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar At the forefront of the US military footprint in the Middle East is Al Udeid Air Base, located southwest of Doha in Qatar. This base is widely considered the largest US military installation in the region, in terms of both personnel and operational capability. The base hosts an estimated 10,000 American troops and supports more than 100 aircraft, including surveillance drones, aerial refuelling tankers and strategic bombers. It also serves as the forward headquarters for CENTCOM and Air Forces Central Command (AFCENT), enabling the coordination of air and support operations across Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Al Udeid's runway reportedly can accommodate the US military's largest aircraft, including B-52 bombers and C-17 Globemasters, giving it immense strategic value for long-range strike and logistical missions. Recent satellite imagery showed a sharp drop in the number of visible aircraft at this base, suggesting a repositioning of key assets amid heightened regional tensions. Furthermore on Thursday, the US Embassy in Qatar issued a security alert, temporarily restricting its personnel from accessing the Al Udeid Air Base. The advisory urged heightened vigilance among embassy staff and US nationals in the country, citing 'an abundance of caution' amid escalating regional tensions. Naval Support Activity, Bahrain In Bahrain, the US Navy operates its regional maritime command out of Naval Support Activity (NSA) in the capital city of Manama. Built on the grounds of the former British naval facility HMS Jufair, the base now serves as the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet. It is reported to support between 8,000 and 9,000 military and civilian personnel, and provides command and logistical support for US naval operations spanning the Persian Gulf, Arabian Sea and Red Sea, critical waterways for global energy flows, and maritime trade. From this command, carrier strike groups, submarines, destroyers and maritime patrol aircraft are coordinated to ensure sea lane security and maintain a steady deterrent posture in a volatile maritime environment. Currently, several US Navy ships are homeported there, including four mine countermeasure vessels and two logistical support ships. The US Coast Guard also maintains a presence, reportedly operating six fast response cutters out of Bahrain. Camp Arifjan, Kuwait To the north, Camp Arifjan in Kuwait serves as the US Army's principal logistics and sustainment hub in the region. Located approximately 55 kilometers southeast of Kuwait City, the base was established in the wake of the Gulf War and has evolved into a central transit and support point for US forces moving through the CENTCOM area of responsibility. The base plays a key role in warehousing prepositioned military equipment, including armored vehicles and missile defence systems, while also supporting command-and-control, intelligence and cyber operations that underpin the US Army's regional footprint. Al Asad Air Base, Iraq In western Iraq's Anbar province, Al Asad Air Base is one of the largest and most fortified American military installations in the region. Originally built by Saddam Hussein in the 1980s and captured by US forces in 2003, the base features two 13,000-foot runways capable of handling heavy-lift aircraft like the C-17 Globemaster III and C-5M Super Galaxy. At its peak during the Iraq War, Al Asad supported over 20,000 US and coalition troops, with full-scale infrastructure, including hardened aircraft shelters, radar facilities, drone launch sites and logistics compounds. Today, it hosts a smaller contingent of US and Iraqi forces operating under a joint command, primarily focused on intelligence-sharing, quick-reaction forces and counter-ISIS surveillance missions. Erbil Air Base, Iraq Further north, in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, the Erbil Air Base serves as a forward operating location for US special operations forces and counter-terrorism missions. Although smaller in scale than Iraq's Al Asad Air Base, Erbil has grown in operational importance due to its proximity to northeastern Syria and its role in coordinating with the Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi Security Forces. This base has been critical in advisory, intelligence and quick-reaction missions, particularly in targeting the remnants of the Islamic State, and monitoring Iran-backed militia activity along the Syria-Iraq corridor. Al Dhafra Air Base, UAE In the United Arab Emirates, the US maintains a strategically important presence at Al Dhafra Air Base, located just south of Abu Dhabi. While smaller than Al Udeid in Qatar, Al Dhafra is reported to host some of the most advanced US air assets, including F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, E-3 AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System), KC-10 aerial refueling tankers and MQ-9B Reaper drones. The base is essential to the US military's intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) network, and also serves as a launch point for rapid strike missions across the Gulf, Iraq And Syria. Given its proximity to the Strait of Hormuz, Al Dhafra is further viewed as a frontline asset in any potential escalation involving Iran, and the US has made substantial investments in hardening its infrastructure there. Incirlik Air Base, Turkey Outside US Central Command's area of responsibility and operating under US European Command (EUCOM), Incirlik Air Base in Turkey also remains a strategically vital outpost. Located near the city of Adana, just 70 kilometers from the Syrian border, the base offers rapid access to conflict zones in Syria and Iraq, areas where Iranian-backed militias and proxy groups maintain a significant footprint. Incirlik has historically supported both US and NATO operations across the region and is widely reported to house up to 50 B61 tactical nuclear bombs under NATO's nuclear-sharing arrangement. (Edited by Mannat Chugh) Also Read: What is Strait of Hormuz & why its closure by Iran could disrupt global energy trade


The Print
43 minutes ago
- The Print
Trump tried to belittle India, but his Iran gamble has handed Modi unexpected diplomatic space
Currently, US President Donald Trump is repeatedly, relentlessly, and quite mindlessly hurting India's prestige and position vis-à-vis Pakistan. He has, more than a dozen times, crudely tried to grab credit for the ceasefire deal between India and Pakistan — a deal he never made. India now surprisingly finds itself in a position with a bit of diplomatic space after the early morning strikes by US warplanes on three of Iran's nuclear sites — Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, where uranium enrichment facilities are buried nearly 80 meters beneath a mountain. There is a Gujarati proverb that goes: Ghee gira to khichdi mein . Loosely translated, it means that the minor loss of a valuable thing can sometimes accidentally benefit a larger cause. To be charitable to Trump, at best the US was one of the active parties who wanted a quick end to Operation Sindoor. Now, in the wake of the mother of all strikes against Iran, even the harshest critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Foreign Minister S Jaishankar might begin to understand why Trump was on a spree of praising Pakistan and belittling India's mature diplomatic stance. It wasn't a collapse of Indian diplomacy. It was the US's geostrategic dependency on Pakistan, which shares a border with America's staunch enemy, Iran. PM Modi has faced severe criticism — even from within his core support base — over Trump's out-of-control diatribes and the seemingly worsening India-US relationship. But now, unfolding events validate Modi's low-key approach since 10 May. Jaishankar has said many times: 'In cricket match, every ball of all overs can't be played to score runs. But even then, a talented batsman can score a century and win the match.' Also read: Iran's brutal regime is facing a reckoning. Consequences of US attack will go beyond Tehran Iran strike opens India's options Many believed Trump was hurting India due to a cryptocurrency-linked multimillion-dollar private deal with Pakistan. But the pressure on him was bigger. America's strategic interests are tied to the future of West Asia. And Pakistan was an important cog in the American machinery built to crush Iran — a highly intelligent Islamic regional power with nuclear ambitions. In retrospect, India has managed to stay at a safe distance from what may be one of the most consequential wars since World War II. Trump, ironically, made that easier by distancing India from the American position. His anti-India rhetoric will help New Delhi avoid being tarred by association in the attack against Iran — a country with civilisational ties to India. Isfahan, one of the bombed regions, and Varanasi are considered among the oldest cities on the planet. Iran may not have actively supported India on many issues, but it has never acted against Indian interests. India and Iran have long-standing gas deals, steady trade relations, and people-to-people connections. On the other hand, Trump's 'strong embrace' of Pakistan may prove to be the kiss of death for Field Marshal Asim Munir. It's now proven that Pakistan succumbed to US pressure and allowed the use of the Quetta airbase in Balochistan for American refuelling operations. The world can now see that Trump extracted far more from Munir in exchange for a photo-op lunch at the White House. Also read: Modi's 'no' to Trump isn't about peace or Pakistan. It's narrative warfare Pakistan trades bases for favour Remember, this war is not a sectarian Muslim conflict like the Iran-Iraq war, nor a regional Shia-Sunni confrontation. One cannot rush to call it a 'clash of civilisations' yet — but it's certainly not a narrow, standalone mission like the US operation to kill Osama bin Laden. There's hardly any doubt that Trump represents the politics of White Christian supremacy. When Trump's America attacks Iran, it's not merely attacking a Shia Muslim nation. That's precisely why Pakistan's decision to succumb and work so decisively and actively with the US against a fellow Islamic country will hurt Munir and his cronies. This explains PM Modi's first tweet after the American bombing of Iran's nuclear sites. He mentioned his conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, saying he expressed 'deep concern at the recent escalations' and reiterated that 'immediate de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy [are] the way forward.' This stance shifts the long-term narrative shaped by Operation Sindoor, and challenges everything Trump said and did to hyphenate India and Pakistan. Pakistan's recent letter to the Nobel Peace Prize committee nominating Trump for his supposed 'diplomatic intervention' in the India-Pakistan conflict will now haunt Islamabad. That move now seems like a poor joke, especially compared to Pakistan's involvement in the unfolding US-Israel war against Iran. Munir's actions will have major repercussions domestically within Pakistan as well. Also read: Trump's seduction of Asim Munir won't get him cheap labour to uphold American Peace War could hit Indian economy Meanwhile, the ongoing crisis will have several serious effects on India, particularly on its economy. According to a senior source in the Modi government: 'Our calculations will be based on how Iran is likely to react.' The US has around 19 military installations in and around West Asia. If Iran retaliates against any of them, the trajectory of this war will drastically change. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, posted on X that the US strikes 'will have everlasting consequences.' He has said that UN member states 'must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behaviour.' India will feel the impact of any Iranian retaliation. The Gulf region, home to nearly 10 million Indian workers, residents, and businesses, is already on edge. There will be immediate effects on oil and gas prices. Saudi Arabia and other producers will also use this situation to advance their commercial interests. One of the deeper economic impacts will come from the likely closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which connects the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. India receives two-thirds of its oil and half of its gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption there will drive up fuel prices in India's domestic market and affect GDP growth. Indian policymakers are closely watching the chronology of recent events. Also read: Why Fordow, Natanz & Isfahan facilities struck by US are critical to Iran's nuclear ambitions Israel tightens regional grip Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shocked the world with how rapidly he regained control in the region. On 7 October 2023, about 3,000 Hamas members launched a surprise attack on unprepared Israeli civilians, killing over 1,200 people. Netanyahu was initially on the back foot. In retaliation, Israel dismantled Hamas leadership, brought Gaza under full control, and even blocked shipments of dates during Ramadan, claiming the seeds could be used against Israeli forces. From behind the scenes, Israel ensured the fall of Hafez Assad regime in Syria. Yemen's Iran-backed Houthis were partly attacked by the US. But nothing gave Netanyahu more control over the region than the US-led attack on Iran. According to regional experts, Israel completed 70–80 per cent of the job in the ten days before, and the US entered on Sunday to finish the rest. The Indian government sees this chronology as a game-changer. India's assessment is that Iran is unlikely to accept defeat quietly. At this moment, the safety of Indians in the Gulf region and the economic impact of the war are New Delhi's top priorities. A serious challenge now lies ahead for India, as America enters a war unfolding in a region uncomfortably close to the Indian subcontinent. Sheela Bhatt is a Delhi-based senior journalist. She tweets @sheela2010. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)