When Silence Speaks: Modi, Trump and the Iran War

Arun Srivastava, Countercurrents, March 7, 2026 : “Narendra Modi has been put on check” is no longer a mere political metaphor; it increasingly reflects reality. The leader who once projected himself as a Vishwaguru has failed even to emerge as a moral guide for his own countrymen. Instead, India’s image and prestige have been eroded to such an extent that its sovereignty itself appears to be challenged.

Many Indians today are left hanging their heads in shame at the indignity the country has been forced to endure at the hands of the President of the United States. What is particularly disturbing is that the self-styled Vishwaguru could not muster the courage to look Donald Trump in the eye and say, “Enough is enough.”

Even smaller Arab nations have questioned the US President’s audacious attack on Iran that shook the entire Middle East. Yet Modi did not dare to object when Indian pride was humiliated.

For the first time in the history of independent India, the United States effectively dictated terms by granting a temporary 30-day waiver allowing India to purchase Russian oil from cargoes stranded at sea. The concession was presented almost as an act of mercy.

Trump justified the move as necessary to stabilize global oil markets amid geopolitical tensions triggered by the US–Iran war. The decision was not driven by sympathy for India, but by concerns that blocking the shipments entirely could remove significant crude volumes from the market and trigger price spikes affecting global inflation.

Yet Modi accepted this arrangement without uttering a single word.

Political circles are increasingly puzzled by this silence. A closer look suggests that the explanation may lie in ideological affinity as much as diplomatic calculation.

Modi’s right-wing Hindutva politics has often aligned with conservative and populist currents in the United States. Strategic cooperation in defense, technology, and geopolitics—particularly in countering China—has reinforced this alignment.

Analysts frequently point to similarities between Modi’s nationalist politics and those of other global right-wing leaders, forming what some describe as a loose “club” of populist nationalism.

Supporters argue that Modi’s approach toward Washington is pragmatic and flexible, designed to protect India’s national interests. Critics see it differently. They argue that ideological proximity to the American right has pushed India into strategic dependence while weakening democratic institutions at home.

Modi’s silence may also be intended to create the impression domestically that India had no prior knowledge of the US–Israel attack on Iran. However, that claim appears difficult to sustain.

Gideon Sa'ar indicated that during Modi’s visit to Israel on February 25, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu briefed him about the evolving situation as part of Israel’s diplomatic outreach. Netanyahu had also spoken with other world leaders to build international support.

Modi’s visit to Israel on February 25–26 occurred just days before the US and Israel launched their strikes on Iran. During those two days Washington remained notably silent.

India’s relationship with Iran under Modi has undergone a profound shift. Opposition leaders argue that the government has effectively abandoned a civilizational relationship with Iran stretching back millennia.

While India and Iran historically shared cultural and strategic ties, Modi has recalibrated foreign policy to prioritize a closer partnership with the United States and a deepening strategic alliance with Israel.

Critics see this shift as ideological rather than pragmatic.

Following the ideological orientation of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the broader Hindutva ecosystem, Modi has adopted an openly pro-Israel stance. Some analysts argue that this posture also serves domestic political goals by consolidating support among sections of the Hindu electorate while strengthening ties with Washington.

During his visit to Israel, Modi even addressed the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, a rare gesture for an Indian prime minister.

His remark that “Israel is their fatherland and India their motherland” was interpreted by supporters as a reference to the Indian-origin Jewish community in Israel. Critics, however, argue that such symbolism overlooks the far older historical ties between India and Iran.

No previous Indian prime minister elevated relations with Israel to the level seen under Modi. India recognized Israel in 1950, but ties remained limited until 1992. Today India is Israel’s largest arms buyer, accounting for nearly 46 percent of Israeli weapons exports, alongside deep cooperation in intelligence and cybersecurity.

This transformation represents a significant departure from India’s earlier diplomatic approach that emphasized solidarity with Palestine and balanced engagement across West Asia.

Historically, India maintained distance from Israel while strongly supporting the Palestinian cause. Critics argue that Modi’s ideological commitment to Hindutva has altered that balance.

Some observers even see parallels between the hardline nationalism of Hindutva and the uncompromising strands of Zionism associated with Netanyahu and his political allies.

The growing India–Israel partnership, they argue, reflects the emergence of a broader nationalist international.

More strikingly, Modi did not publicly express condolences after Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was reportedly killed in the February 28 US–Israel strike—an unusual omission in diplomatic practice.

Only on March 5 did India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri visit the Iranian Embassy in New Delhi to sign the condolence book, after mounting criticism from opposition leaders and observers.

Equally troubling was India’s silence when the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena was reportedly sunk by a US naval torpedo near Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean shortly after participating in an Indian naval event.

India often describes itself as the “guardian” of the Indian Ocean. Yet the government avoided publicly challenging the incident, even though the vessel had been a visiting naval guest.

Modi’s silence on these issues stands in stark contrast to India’s traditional commitment to sovereignty and international law.

Critics argue that India has effectively drifted into the US–Israel strategic camp, risking its longstanding relationships with Iran and other Muslim-majority countries.

Eventually Modi called for regional stability and diplomatic solutions, but critics remained unconvinced.

Congress leader Sonia Gandhi summed up the opposition’s position bluntly: “Silence, in this instance, is not neutral.” She described the government’s stance as an abdication of India’s traditional balanced diplomacy.

Meanwhile, the controversy has been further complicated by references to Modi in the recently released Epstein files. The Ministry of External Affairs dismissed the claims as baseless, though political debate intensified after Union Minister Hardeep Singh Puri acknowledged meeting Jeffrey Epstein several times in the past.

Domestically, the government has also tightened surveillance and restrictions following the Iran strikes. The Home Ministry advised state governments to closely monitor protests and social media activity, citing concerns about potential unrest.

Authorities invoked Section 163 of the BNSS to restrict gatherings in diplomatic areas and increase security around US and Israeli embassies.

Critics argue that if the government truly believes it stands on the right side of history, it should have no difficulty explaining India’s position openly.

Continued silence, they warn, risks inflicting even deeper damage.

With Trump himself struggling to justify the war to sections of the American public, the situation has become politically awkward for Modi at home.

The world, meanwhile, continues to speculate about the deeper motivations behind the Trump–Netanyahu military operation known as “Operation Epic Fury.”