The US-Iran conflict is a reminder for India to invest in a forward-looking naval strategy

Brig. Dinesh Mathur (retd)

The ongoing Operation Epic Fury represents a pivotal moment in global geopolitics with profound implications for India’s strategic interests. As the Strait of Hormuz remains closed and oil prices surge globally, the conflict has evolved beyond a regional confrontation into a complex interplay of great power competition, energy security, and emerging military doctrines.

For India, positioned at a crossroads of competing interests between the United States (US), China, Russia, and regional powers, this conflict offers critical lessons in asymmetric warfare, strategic autonomy, and national preparedness. The war has exposed vulnerabilities in conventional military thinking while demonstrating the effectiveness of integrated drone warfare, precision missiles, and mosaic deployment strategies. 

As India navigates its own security challenges along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and the Line of Control (LC), understanding these dynamics becomes essential for formulating robust defence policies and strategic imperatives. 

Geopolitical Landscape

Geopolitics has two basic ingredients--geography and power. Geography taught in schools focused on territorial boundaries and frontiers, physical features, waterways, natural barricades, and the possession of natural resources. Famous explorers discovered these world resources through arduous journeys, armed with weapons, state funds, and technological innovation, and used their power to acquire these resources. In this context, two eminent theorists, Mahan from the US and Mackinder from the UK, expounded divergent theories on sea control and land-based heartland, respectively. 

The collapse of the Soviet Union made America the world’s sole superpower. For them, sea control implied protection of sea lanes of communication (SLOC), domination of global maritime trade, the ability to make or break rules, deny access to inimical powers, and shape their behaviour. Its continental geography gave it the ability to wage war without fear of supply lines being cut, while denying any outside power the capability to wage war against it. Most nations found it profitable to access the international trading system. Even though there have been major changes in power equations across the globe, trade patterns remain the same.

Both US trade routes--the trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic--are profitable and safe. The third route constitutes the global hub for trade and commerce in the Asia Pacific, stretching from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific islands. All these routes hinge around sea lanes; therefore, sea control assumes great significance. The control of two oceans, the Pacific and Atlantic, is a challenging task for any nation. When control of the Eurasian Heartland was thought of, US strategic interests needed many forward-deployed military personnel and assets for power projection. That led to the acquisition of 750 overseas bases in 80 countries across the globe, including Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and Qatar in West Asia. 

Most West Asian states are more a product of colonial era map drawings than historical geography. The West has long treated West Asia as its geopolitical backyard, given its vast energy reserves, strategic waterways, and opportunities for forging alliances with monarchies. Western powers tend to view their actions through an old lens, believing their military strength, advanced weapons, and technological dominance could transform these ‘weak monarchies’ into willing surrogates.

The West, chiefly the UK and the US, dominated Iranian politics from 1906 until the 1979 revolution. The US still believes, after almost five decades, that state-driven social controls, surveillance, suppression of protests, and information manipulation have eroded traditional Persian and Shia cultures and economic development in Iran. They assume that the lack of specialised professionals and fragmented infrastructure due to prolonged Western sanctions have created conditions for a ‘popular uprising’ against the repressive mullah rule.

This is far from the truth. Iran has a very long history of internal struggles for