By: Aasi Ansari

The rivalry between the United States and Iran has been one of the defining features of West Asian geopolitics since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Periodic escalations—ranging from sanctions to military confrontations—have destabilized the region, but the possibility of a full-scale war would reverberate far beyond its borders. For India, the stakes are particularly high. As one of the world’s largest importers of oil and a country with millions of expatriates living in the Gulf, India’s economic and security interests are directly tied to the stability of West Asia. At the same time, India’s growing strategic partnership with the United States complicates its ability to maintain traditional ties with Iran. This dual dependence places India in a precarious position, forcing it to navigate a volatile geopolitical landscape with caution and foresight.

Historical Context: India–Iran Relations

During the Cold War, India maintained cordial relations with Iran, though Tehran’s alignment with the United States and later its Islamic Revolution created complexities. After 1979, Iran’s ideological orientation and hostility toward Washington placed India in a delicate position, as New Delhi sought to balance its non-aligned stance with pragmatic engagement. In the 1990s and 2000s, India and Iran found common ground in energy cooperation and regional connectivity. The Chabahar Port project, initiated in the early 2000s, symbolized this partnership, offering India a strategic gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia while bypassing Pakistan.

However, U.S. sanctions on Iran repeatedly disrupted this relationship. India was compelled to reduce oil imports from Iran, despite its dependence on Iranian crude, and faced diplomatic pressure to align with Washington’s policies. Nevertheless, India consistently supported Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy while opposing weaponization, reflecting its nuanced approach. This historical trajectory underscores India’s dilemma: Iran remains a cultural and strategic partner, yet U.S. pressure often constrains engagement.

Defence and Strategic Security

India has traditionally adopted a neutral strategic stand in major international conflicts, guided by its doctrine of strategic autonomy. This approach allows New Delhi to avoid entanglement in power blocs while safeguarding national interests. In conflicts such as a U.S.–Israeli confrontation with Iran, India refrains from taking sides, instead emphasizing dialogue, diplomacy, and de-escalation. Neutrality enables India to maintain access to critical energy supplies from West Asia, preserve its growing defence partnership with the United States, and sustain historical ties with Iran. By balancing relationships, India seeks to protect its economic stability and project itself as a responsible, independent actor in global affairs. Openly siding with the United States risks alienating Iran and its allies, while neutrality could invite U.S. displeasure. India’s doctrine of strategic autonomy would be tested, requiring careful navigation to safeguard national interests without entanglement in the conflict.

A U.S.–Iran war would directly challenge India’s defence and strategic security. India’s partnership with the United States has deepened significantly in recent decades, encompassing arms imports, joint military exercises, and cooperation within the Quad framework. Washington has become a critical partner in India’s efforts to modernize its military and counterbalance China’s rise. Yet Iran provides India with strategic access to Afghanistan and Central Asia through the Chabahar Port, a project that is central to India’s vision of regional connectivity. A war that destabilizes Iran or weakens its ability to cooperate with India would jeopardize this corridor, undermining India’s strategic autonomy.

Beyond infrastructure, the security of Indian expatriates in West Asia is a pressing concern. Over eight million Indians live and work in Gulf states, contributing billions in remittances to the Indian economy. A conflict that destabilizes the region has the possibility of expose these communities to violence, displacement, or economic disruption, forcing India to prepare for large-scale evacuations.

Energy and Economy Crisis

A U.S.–Iran war, especially when Israel is directly involved, would have a dramatic effect on India’s oil and gas prices. India’s energy security is perhaps the most immediate and severe area of vulnerability in the event of a U.S.–Iran war. India imports nearly 85 percent of its crude oil, much of it from West Asia. Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would spike global oil prices and threaten supply chains, directly impacting India’s economy. Past crises have shown how sensitive India is to fluctuations in oil prices, with inflationary pressures quickly spreading across sectors. Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint through which nearly one-fifth of global oil passes—would immediately tighten supply. Global benchmarks like Brent crude could surge well above $200 per barrel, translating into higher domestic fuel costs. Rising oil prices would ripple across the economy, increasing transportation expenses, electricity generation costs, and the price of essential commodities. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) is another critical dependency. India sources over 90 percent of its LPG from the Gulf, and a war would cause price hikes domestically, straining households and industries alike. The government would be forced to subsidize energy costs, placing additional pressure on public finances.

Fertilizer production, heavily dependent on natural gas, would become costlier, pushing food inflation higher. The government would face pressure to expand subsidies, straining public finances. Agricultural and industrial exports could face delays due to instability in Gulf shipping lanes, while imports of fertilizers and petrochemicals would become more expensive. The Gulf region is a critical market for Indian goods, and instability would undermine this trade relationship.

Beyond fuel prices, India GDP also heavily depend on Gulf nations. Remittances from Indian workers in the Gulf, which amount to over $50 billion annually, are another area of vulnerability. Job losses or displacement due to conflict could reduce remittances, affecting household incomes and domestic consumption. Financial volatility in global markets would deter foreign investment in India, complicating economic recovery and growth. Diversification of energy sources is a long-term solution, but logistical and geopolitical constraints limit alternatives. Russia, the United States, and Latin America could provide substitutes, yet transportation costs and political risks complicate reliance on these suppliers.

In summary, a U.S.–Iran war would have severe economic consequences for India, particularly through volatility in oil and gas prices. Rising global energy costs would immediately push up domestic fuel prices, increasing transportation, manufacturing, and food expenses. This inflationary pressure would slow GDP growth and weaken the rupee, making imports more expensive and widening the trade deficit. Beyond energy, the ripple effects would strain household budgets, reduce industrial competitiveness, and challenge government finances through higher subsidy demands. The situation highlights India’s vulnerability to external shocks and underscores the urgent need for energy diversification, renewable investment, and stronger strategic reserves.

Future Implications

Looking ahead, a U.S.–Iran war would force India to reassess its foreign policy and strategic priorities. India’s doctrine of multi-alignment—engaging with multiple powers simultaneously—would become even more critical. Strengthening ties with both the United States and Iran, while hedging through partnerships with Russia, the European Union, and Gulf states, would be essential to maintaining strategic autonomy. The crisis would underscore the urgency of expanding renewable energy and domestic production, pushing India to accelerate its transition toward solar, wind, and nuclear power. Reducing dependence on volatile oil markets is not only an economic necessity but also a strategic imperative.

A U.S.–Israeli war against Iran would strain India’s food and water security through indirect but powerful economic shocks. Rising global oil prices, triggered by disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, would sharply increase transportation and fertilizer costs, pushing up the price of essential food staples such as wheat, rice, and pulses. Higher fuel costs ripple across agriculture, making irrigation, storage, and distribution more expensive. At the same time, instability in Gulf shipping routes would delay imports of fertilizers and agrochemicals, further reducing productivity. Water security would also be affected, as energy-intensive pumping and irrigation become costlier, worsening groundwater depletion and raising urban supply costs.

Diplomatically, India could leverage its role in multilateral forums such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the United Nations to mediate or maintain dialogue. By positioning itself as a constructive actor, India could enhance its global stature and contribute to peacebuilding. Military modernization would also gain momentum. Investments in naval and air defence capabilities would be prioritized to secure sea lanes and protect overseas interests. The Indian military would need to prepare for scenarios involving evacuation, maritime security, and regional instability, and reinforcing its role as a global security actor.

Conclusion

The U.S.-Iran war has big impact on India’s economy and strategic security. India traditionally has never taken sides in any conflict. Maintaining its neutral strategic stand, this U.S.–Iran crisis can also be an opportunity for India’s energy and economic landscape. This could promote diversification, forcing India to explore other nations for energy and defence import and reduce dependence on America and Gulf imports. Exploring alternative suppliers in Africa, Russia, and Latin America would broaden India’s energy base, while investment in solar, wind, and nuclear power could build long-term resilience. This moment of crisis, therefore, offers India an opportunity to transform its energy security strategy and reinforce economic stability. By accelerating energy diversification, strengthening military capabilities, and enhancing diplomatic engagement, India can build resilience and assert its role as a global actor. Ultimately, India’s response to a U.S.–Iran war will shape its future trajectory: whether as a cautious bystander or as a proactive mediator advocating peace and stability in a volatile region.

By : Sonalika Singh, Consulting Editor, GSDN

The conclusion of the recent diplomatic engagement between the United States and Iran in Islamabad marks a critical juncture in an already volatile geopolitical landscape. While the talks end without a definitive agreement, they do not signal the end of diplomacy. Instead, they underscore the complexity of the conflict and the enduring possibility, however fragile of a negotiated resolution. The continuation of a temporary ceasefire, despite deep-seated mistrust and unresolved disagreements, suggests that hope, though diminished, remains alive. 

At the heart of Islamabad lies a paradox. On one hand, both sides engage in prolonged and intensive negotiations, reflecting mutual recognition of the catastrophic consequences of continued conflict. On the other hand, the inability to reach common ground on fundamental issues reveals the depth of divergence in strategic priorities. The United States, represented by Vice President JD Vance, maintains a firm stance on curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while Iran insists on safeguarding its sovereignty and strategic leverage. This fundamental clash shapes the trajectory of negotiations and complicates prospects for immediate breakthroughs. 

The presence of a fragile two-week ceasefire serves as both a buffer and a ticking clock. With only days remaining, the absence of a long-term agreement raises concerns about a potential return to hostilities. Yet, the very existence of the ceasefire demonstrates that both parties recognize the necessity of restraint, at least temporarily. It provides a narrow window for diplomacy to continue, offering mediators and stakeholders an opportunity to build upon the limited progress achieved in Islamabad. 

One of the most significant outcomes of the talks is not what is achieved, but what is avoided. The failure to escalate into immediate conflict following the breakdown of negotiations is, in itself, a noteworthy development.In a war that has already resulted in thousands of casualties and widespread economic disruption, the avoidance of further violence, even temporarily, reflects a cautious willingness to keep diplomatic channels open. This restraint is crucial in maintaining a foundation upon which future negotiations can be constructed. 

Pakistan’s role as a mediator adds another layer of complexity and cautious optimism to the situation. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan positions itself as a facilitator capable of bridging divides between adversaries. Its strategic relationships with both Washington and Tehran enable it to act as an intermediary, even in the absence of direct dialogue between the two parties. While critics argue that Pakistan’s influence remains limited, its ability to bring both sides to the negotiating table and sustain dialogue reflects a meaningful diplomatic achievement. 

However, the Islamabad talks also highlight the persistent challenge of trust or the lack thereof. Iranian officials openly express skepticism regarding American intentions, citing historical precedents of failed agreements and perceived policy reversals. The shadow of past diplomatic efforts, particularly the withdrawal from earlier nuclear agreements, continues to loom large over current negotiations. This erosion of trust complicates efforts to establish credible commitments and undermines confidence in any proposed framework for peace. 

The issue of nuclear development emerges as a central point of contention. The United States demands clear assurances that Iran will not pursue nuclear weapons, framing this as a non-negotiable condition for long-term peace. Iran, however, views such demands as an infringement on its sovereign rights, particularly when they extend to limiting peaceful nuclear activities. This impasse reflects a broader struggle between security concerns and national autonomy, a dilemma that has historically impeded progress in US-Iran relations. 

Equally significant is the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime chokepoint through which a substantial portion of the world’s oil supply passes. Iran’s control over this waterway provides it with considerable leverage, while the United States and its allies seek to ensure uninterrupted access for global trade. The inability to reconcile these competing interests during the Islamabad talks underscores the broader geopolitical stakes involved, extending the impact of the conflict far beyond the immediate region. 

The economic ramifications of the ongoing conflict further amplify the urgency of finding a resolution. Disruptions in oil supply chains, rising energy prices, and instability in global markets illustrate the far-reaching consequences of prolonged hostilities. These pressures create incentives for both sides to pursue diplomatic solutions, even in the face of significant disagreements. The interplay between economic necessity and political strategy thus becomes a key factor influencing the trajectory of negotiations. 

Statements from key political figures reveal a cautious yet persistent commitment to diplomacy. While Donald Trump expresses optimism about partial agreements, he simultaneously acknowledges the failure to resolve the most critical issue nuclear policy. This duality reflects the broader reality of the negotiations: incremental progress coexisting with a fundamental deadlock. Similarly, Iranian leadership emphasizes its willingness to engage in dialogue, provided that its core interests and conditions are respected. 

The role of external analysts and experts provides additional insight into the dynamics of the talks. Scholars such as Fawaz Gerges highlight the structural nature of the disagreements, suggesting that the lack of a breakthrough is not surprising given the depth of the issues at stake. From this perspective, the Islamabad talks represent one phase in a longer diplomatic process rather than a decisive moment of resolution. 

Importantly, the historical context of US-Iran negotiations offers both caution and hope. Previous agreements, including those reached after years of sustained dialogue, demonstrate that progress is possible, albeit slow and often fragile. The comparison underscores the need for patience and persistence, particularly in a context where negotiations occur amid active conflict rather than relative stability. The expectation of immediate results may therefore be unrealistic, and the absence of a breakthrough should not be interpreted as failure. 

Another dimension of the Islamabad talks is the perception of victory held by both sides. Each party enters the negotiations with a belief in its strategic advantage, reducing the willingness to make concessions. This dynamic complicates the bargaining process, as compromise becomes politically and ideologically challenging. However, it also suggests that both sides recognize the importance of negotiation as a means of consolidatingtheir positions, rather than relying solely on military outcomes. 

Despite the setbacks, there are indications that backchannel diplomacy continues behind the scenes. The complexity of the issues at hand necessitates sustained engagement beyond formal negotiations. Mediators, including Pakistan, play a crucial role in facilitating these efforts, helping to identify areas of potential convergence and maintain communication between the parties. Such efforts, though less visible, are often instrumental in laying out the groundwork for future agreements. 

The humanitarian dimension of the conflict cannot be overlooked. The significant loss of life, including a large number of civilians, underscores the urgency of achieving lasting peace. Beyond geopolitical considerations, the human cost of the war serves as a powerful reminder of what is at stake. This reality adds moral weight to the pursuit of diplomacy and reinforces the importance of continued efforts to prevent further suffering. 

In assessing whether hope remains after the Islamabad talks, it is essential to adopt a nuanced perspective. The absence of an immediate agreement reflects the complexity of the conflict rather than the futility of diplomacy. The continuation of the ceasefire, the willingness to engage in dialogue, and the involvement of mediators all point to the persistence of diplomatic avenues. At the same time, the depth of mistrust and the scale of disagreements highlight the challenges that lie ahead. 

Ultimately, hope in this context is not defined by swift resolutions or dramatic breakthroughs. Instead, it resides in the gradual, often incremental process of negotiation, where progress is measured in small steps rather than decisive victories. The Islamabad talks, despite their limitations, contribute to this process by sustaining dialogue and preventing immediate escalation. 

Therefore, the path forward will require sustained commitment from all parties involved. Confidence-building measures, greater transparency, and a willingness to engage in meaningful compromise will be essential to bridging the existing divides. Mediators must continue to facilitate dialogue, while the international community plays a supportive role in encouraging a peaceful resolution.

Although the Islamabad talks fall short of delivering a comprehensive agreement, they do not extinguish the possibility of peace. The fragile ceasefire, ongoing diplomatic engagement, and continued mediation efforts suggest that hope, though challenged, endures. The road to resolution remains long and uncertain, but if dialogue persists, the prospect of a peaceful outcome remains within reach. 

By: Khushbu Ahlawat, Consulting Editor, GSDN

Introduction

India’s energy transition is entering a decisive phase, marked by the urgent need to balance rapid economic growth, rising electricity demand, and climate commitments. The recent policy push to transform the nuclear power sector—highlighted by proposals to significantly expand capacity and enable private sector participation—signals a structural shift in India’s energy strategy. Nuclear power, long constrained by regulatory, financial, and technological barriers, is now being repositioned as a critical pillar of India’s low-carbon future.

It underscores that India aims to increase its nuclear capacity from under 10 GW to 100 GW by 2047, a target that reflects both ambition and necessity. However, achieving this goal will require not only legislative reform but also institutional restructuring, investment mobilisation, and technological innovation. The transformation of India’s nuclear landscape thus represents a broader shift from state-dominated control to a more diversified, market-oriented framework.

Policy Reform and Institutional Transformation

A central feature of the proposed transformation is the introduction of the Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, which seeks to dismantle longstanding structural barriers. Historically, nuclear energy in India has been the exclusive domain of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), with strict state control over generation, ownership, and operations.

The SHANTI framework proposes to open the sector to private participation, grant statutory status to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), and revise liability laws that have deterred foreign investment. The potential replacement of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act (2010) is particularly significant, as liability concerns have long discouraged global nuclear suppliers from entering the Indian market.

However, as the article rightly points out, legislative change alone is insufficient. The success of these reforms depends on implementation clarity, regulatory coherence, and alignment between central and state institutions. Without these, the ambitious targets risk remaining aspirational.

Energy Context: Why Nuclear Matters Now

India’s energy demand is projected to grow exponentially, with total electricity requirements expected to exceed 2,000 GW by 2047. Despite rapid expansion in renewable energy, structural challenges remain. Renewable sources such as solar and wind are inherently intermittent, dependent on climatic conditions and geography.

Data from 2024–25 shows that while renewables accounted for nearly 50% of installed capacity, they contributed only around 28% of actual electricity generation, highlighting the gap between capacity and reliability. In contrast, thermal power continues to dominate with approximately 75% of electricity generation, underscoring India’s continued dependence on fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy offers a crucial advantage: it provides stable, baseload power with low carbon emissions, making it indispensable for achieving India’s net-zero target by 2070. As energy experts note, “without firm, non-intermittent power sources like nuclear, deep decarbonisation remains structurally constrained.”

Current Status and Growth Trajectory

India’s nuclear power programme, operational since 1969, currently consists of 24 reactors with a capacity of approximately 8.78 GW. While this represents steady progress, it remains modest compared to global leaders.

The government’s past efforts, including the fleet mode construction of 10 reactors in 2017, aimed to accelerate capacity expansion through standardisation and economies of scale. However, delays in execution and financing challenges have slowed progress.

Financially, nuclear power projects remain capital-intensive, with costs ranging between ₹20,000–₹24,000 crore per reactor, and an average cost of around $2 million per MW. Estimates suggest that achieving 100 GW capacity could require investments exceeding $200 billion, making private and foreign participation essential.

A closer examination of comparative data underscores both the scale of India’s nuclear ambitions and the gap it must bridge to reach global benchmarks. As of 2025, India’s nuclear power capacity of approximately 8.78 GW accounts for less than 3% of its total electricity generation, significantly lower than the global average of around 10%. In contrast, countries such as the United States operate over 90 GW of nuclear capacity, contributing nearly 18–20% of their electricity mix, while France derives over 65% of its electricity from nuclear energy, reflecting decades of sustained investment and policy continuity. China, meanwhile, has rapidly expanded its nuclear programme, with over 55 GW operational capacity and more than 20 reactors under construction, positioning itself as a global leader in new nuclear deployment. From a cost perspective, India’s nuclear tariffs currently range between ₹6–₹9 per unit, higher than solar tariffs but competitive when adjusted for reliability and lifecycle output. Additionally, nuclear plants in India operate at capacity factors exceeding 80%, compared to 20–25% for solar and 30–35% for wind, highlighting their efficiency as baseload providers. Projections by energy agencies indicate that to achieve 100 GW by 2047, India will need to commission at least 4–5 GW annually, a pace nearly four times its historical average. This data underscores that scaling nuclear energy will require not only policy reform but also accelerated project execution, financial innovation, and long-term strategic planning.

Technological Pathways and Innovation

A key component of India’s nuclear strategy lies in technological diversification and indigenisation. The editorial highlights multiple pathways:

• Adoption of Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs)
• Exploration of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
• Development of thorium-based fuel cycles, leveraging India’s vast thorium reserves

SMRs, in particular, are emerging as a promising solution due to their lower capital costs, modular construction, and suitability for industrial applications. India aims to deploy several SMRs by 2035, aligning with global trends in nuclear innovation.

Additionally, the potential use of High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU) could enhance efficiency and performance, though it requires technological and regulatory readiness. An often underemphasised yet crucial aspect of nuclear energy expansion is its integration into India’s evolving power grid and system management architecture. As India moves towards a high-renewable energy mix—with a target of 500 GW of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030—grid stability is emerging as a key operational challenge. Renewable energy sources, particularly solar and wind, introduce variability that requires balancing through firm and dispatchable power sources. In this context, nuclear power plants, with their high capacity factors of over 80% and predictable output profiles, can play a stabilising role in maintaining grid frequency and reducing dependence on coal-based balancing power. Data from grid operators indicates that frequency deviations and ramping requirements have increased significantly in recent years due to renewable intermittency, necessitating investments in flexible generation and storage solutions. While battery storage is expanding, its current costs and duration limitations make it insufficient as a standalone solution for long-duration balancing. Nuclear energy, when integrated with advanced grid management systems and flexible operation protocols, can complement renewables by providing baseload stability as well as limited load-following capability. Additionally, co-location of nuclear plants with industrial clusters and desalination facilities can optimise energy utilisation and reduce transmission losses. This systems-level perspective highlights that nuclear expansion is not merely about adding capacity but about enhancing overall grid resilience, efficiency, and reliability in a rapidly transforming energy ecosystem.

Industrial and Economic Implications

The expansion of nuclear energy has significant implications for India’s industrial ecosystem. Sectors such as steel, cement, petrochemicals, and data centres—which require continuous and high-density power—stand to benefit from reliable nuclear energy supply. Moreover, localisation of nuclear manufacturing and construction can stimulate job creation, technological capability, and supply chain development. However, achieving this requires addressing challenges related to financing, project timelines, and risk-sharing mechanisms. A critical financial dimension shaping the future of India’s nuclear expansion is the evolving landscape of energy investment and capital allocation. According to recent energy finance assessments, India will require annual energy investments exceeding $160–$180 billion through 2040 to meet its climate and growth targets, with nuclear energy expected to capture a gradually increasing share of this capital pool. However, unlike renewables—which attracted over $20 billion in investments in 2024 alone—nuclear projects continue to face challenges in securing long-term financing due to high upfront costs, extended gestation periods, and perceived regulatory risks. Globally, innovative financing models such as regulated asset base (RAB) frameworks, sovereign guarantees, and blended finance mechanisms have been used to de-risk nuclear investments, particularly in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada. For India, adopting similar approaches could significantly improve bankability and attract institutional investors such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds. Additionally, lifecycle cost comparisons indicate that while nuclear projects have higher capital expenditure, their operational costs remain relatively low and stable over 40–60 years, making them economically viable over the long term. Another emerging factor is the potential inclusion of nuclear energy in green finance taxonomies, which could unlock access to international climate finance and lower borrowing costs. As India moves toward scaling its nuclear capacity, aligning financial frameworks with global best practices will be essential to ensure that investment flows match policy ambition and enable timely project execution.

Three-Front Strategic Approach

There is three-front strategy to achieve the 100 GW target:

1. Adoption and indigenisation of global reactor designs (EDF, Westinghouse)
2. Accelerated development of indigenous SMRs and advanced reactors
3. Leveraging private sector expertise in design, construction, and financing

This multi-pronged approach reflects a pragmatic recognition that no single pathway can meet India’s ambitious goals.

Challenges and Structural Constraints

Despite its promise, nuclear expansion faces several constraints:

• High upfront capital costs
• Long construction timelines (often exceeding a decade)
• Regulatory and liability uncertainties
• Public concerns over safety and waste management

Additionally, issues related to tariff determination, fuel supply, and waste disposal remain unresolved.

Global Context and Strategic Significance

Globally, nuclear energy is witnessing renewed interest as countries seek reliable low-carbon energy sources. Nations like China and France are rapidly expanding nuclear capacity, while others are investing in next-generation technologies. For India, strengthening nuclear capabilities is not only an energy imperative but also a strategic necessity, enhancing energy independence and reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. It also reinforces India’s position in global climate negotiations as a responsible and proactive actor. An equally critical factor influencing the trajectory of nuclear energy expansion is the evolving global nuclear supply chain and fuel security landscape. India currently relies significantly on imported uranium, sourcing supplies from countries such as Kazakhstan, Canada, and Australia, following the operationalisation of civil nuclear agreements after 2008. Estimates suggest that India imports over 80% of its uranium requirements, making long-term fuel security a strategic priority as capacity expands. Globally, uranium demand is projected to rise by over 40% by 2040, driven by renewed nuclear investments across Asia and Europe, which could tighten supply markets and increase price volatility. At the same time, enrichment and fuel fabrication capabilities remain concentrated in a few countries, adding another layer of geopolitical sensitivity to nuclear energy expansion. Domestically, India’s efforts to enhance uranium exploration and mining have yielded modest gains, but production continues to lag behind future requirements. In parallel, the development of a closed fuel cycle and reprocessing capabilities offers a pathway to improve resource efficiency and reduce external dependence over time. Strategic stockpiling of nuclear fuel, diversification of supply agreements, and investment in indigenous fuel cycle technologies will therefore be essential components of India’s long-term nuclear roadmap. This dimension highlights that scaling nuclear energy is not only a question of infrastructure and finance but also of resource security and geopolitical resilience in an increasingly competitive global energy environment.

Way Forward

To realise its nuclear ambitions, India must adopt a holistic and coordinated approach:

• Streamline regulatory processes and ensure policy clarity
• Attract private and foreign investment through risk-sharing mechanisms
• Invest in research and development for advanced technologies
• Strengthen institutional capacity and project management
• Address public concerns through transparency and engagement

As energy policy experts emphasise, the success of nuclear expansion will depend on execution efficiency as much as policy vision.

Conclusion

India’s effort to transform its nuclear power landscape represents a bold and necessary step in its energy transition journey. The push towards 100 GW capacity reflects a recognition that clean, reliable, and scalable energy sources are essential for sustainable development. However, the path ahead is complex, requiring not only ambitious targets but also pragmatic implementation, institutional reform, and stakeholder alignment. Nuclear energy, while not a panacea, offers a critical bridge between India’s present energy realities and its future climate commitments. Ultimately, the success of this transformation will depend on India’s ability to translate policy intent into operational reality, ensuring that nuclear power evolves from a marginal contributor to a central pillar of the nation’s energy architecture.

By: Simran Sodhi, Guest Author, GSDN

As the world economy suffers as a result of the Middle East conflict, another outcome that is becoming rather obvious is the decline of the United States as the hegemon that seemed invincible and all powerful before Feb 28. Post World War II, the US has been regarded as the world’s foremost power in economic and military terms. Even in terms of diplomacy and the international arena, the multiple alliances that the US forged with Europe, countries in Asia and elsewhere made the US the world’s superpower.

The Middle East conflict, which is now a month old, has however revealed many of the cracks in this argument now. Militarily, the US has the world’s best armies, navies and air forces. Yet, even after a month of bombing Iran relentlessly, the US is not in a position to declare victory. The asymmetric warfare employed by Iran has brought down US planes, hit US military bases in the Gulf States and infrastructure facilities in the region. Most significantly, Iran has de facto closed the Strait of Hormuz through which 20% of the world’s oil passes through. This has resulted in the oil prices crossing $100 a barrel and fears of inflation and recession spreading globally.

The US has fumed and issued threats and tantrums to the Iranians. But to no avail. The Strait remains closed and Iran is now allowing ships to pass through it on a case by case basis. Some reports suggest that Iran is now charging the ships that are allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz a transit fee in Chinese Yuan. This is a direct challenge to the supremacy of the dollar and a win for China. The fact that the US, with all its military might, has failed to get the Strait of Hormuz opened also is the beginning of the end of the US hegemony.

Further, the fact that the US’s NATO allies have refused to back the US on this war or become a party to it, further points to the alienation of the US from Europe. It would not be an overstatement to state at this point that the ongoing Middle East conflict has permanently damaged the EU-US alliance. US President Donald Trump, in his posts on social media, has criticized the EU and made fun of the EU leaders. His mimicry of leaders like the French President have further made this alliance ‘almost over’.

For the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, this conflict has exposed their vulnerabilities to Iran. It has also painfully revealed at how ineffective the US has been in protecting the Gulf States. Further, another harsh reality that has emerged is that for the US, the priority would always be the interests of Israel. This is despite the fact that the Gulf States have invested heavily in the US economy and have always looked upon the US as a reliable security guarantee. Whenever this conflict gets over, whether in the next few weeks or months, it will lead to the Gulf States doing a serios re-assessment of their security concerns. One can expect more bilateral defense pacts like the one inked by Saudi Arabia with Pakistan. In short, there is likely to a movement away from the US orbit as the Gulf will need to invest more domestically in defense and search for new partners in that direction. This will ensure that the Middle East moves away from the US sphere of influence, much like Europe.   

Much of the Asian nations are also watching this rapid change of international order. China is the biggest winner here. The more the US power is dented, the more it benefits the rise of China. For Russia, which is entangled in Ukraine for almost four years now, this conflict has both gains and losses. The gain again is watching the US depleting its military resources but the worry is Ukraine getting a foothold in the Gulf as it sells its anti-drone technology in the region which has been heavily attacked by the Iranian drones. Countries like India which have sought to cultivate deeper ties with the US have already done a re-think. India is today talking directly to Iran so that its ships can transit the Strait of Hormuz. For Japan, South Korea and others in the Indo-Pacific, the fear of an even stronger China will keep them in the neutral zone. But the failure of the US to protect the interests of the Gulf States has an important lesson for Japan and South Korea who rely heavily on US guarantees of security.

History teaches us that all empires rise and then decline. The world has witnessed the rise and fall of the Roman empires to the Ottomans and the British empire. Today, we sit at the beginning of the decline of the US hegemony and every nation-State must make fresh calculations about its role in a new world order. Whether this will usher in a multipolar world with players like Russia, China and the EU or an era led by a new superpower like China, only time will tell.

By: Khushbu Ahlawat, Consulting Editor, GSDN

Introduction

India–Bangladesh relations have long been considered a cornerstone of South Asian regional stability, rooted in shared history, geography, and cultural affinities. However, recent developments suggest a subtle but significant recalibration in Dhaka’s diplomatic messaging. Bangladesh’s renewed emphasis on “people-to-people ties” over purely state-centric engagement signals both a pragmatic shift and a response to evolving domestic and regional dynamics. This moment presents an opportunity to reassess the trajectory of bilateral relations—balancing strategic cooperation with public sentiment, economic interdependence, and political realities. In the 2025–2026 context, this shift is even more significant as bilateral ties are passing through a phase of “instability and interdependence”, where institutional cooperation remains intact but societal and political tensions are rising. Experts argue that this phase reflects a deeper structural transformation rather than a temporary diplomatic fluctuation. Within policy circles, this has increasingly been described as a transition from “government-led convergence” to “society-sensitive diplomacy.”

Context and Immediate Trigger

The article reflects statements from Bangladesh’s Foreign Affairs Adviser urging deeper societal engagement between India and Bangladesh, while also acknowledging periodic misunderstandings at the political and administrative levels. This comes at a time when Bangladesh is navigating post-election political consolidation, India is recalibrating its Neighbourhood First Policy, and regional geopolitics is increasingly influenced by China’s growing footprint in South Asia.

The messaging is clear: while government-to-government relations remain stable, public perception and grassroots engagement need strengthening. This becomes more relevant after the 2024 political transition in Bangladesh, where leadership change created uncertainties in foreign policy orientation. In April 2025, a key bilateral meeting between Indian and Bangladeshi leadership on the sidelines of BIMSTEC addressed sensitive issues like Teesta water sharing, border killings, and minority concerns—highlighting both cooperation and friction.

Experts note that such engagements are “constructive but cautious,” reflecting a relationship that is cooperative yet under strain, with diplomacy increasingly shaped by domestic political compulsions on both sides.

Historical Foundations of India–Bangladesh Relations

The bilateral relationship has been shaped by several defining milestones. The Liberation War of 1971 remains the bedrock of goodwill, with India playing a decisive role in Bangladesh’s independence. The Ganga Water Treaty (1996) symbolized cooperative conflict resolution over shared river resources. The Land Boundary Agreement (2015) resolved decades-old enclave disputes and is often cited as one of the most successful peaceful border settlements globally. In addition, the 2015 maritime boundary settlement and continued cooperation through mechanisms like the Joint Rivers Commission demonstrate institutional depth in bilateral engagement. These foundational agreements continue to provide stability even during contemporary tensions, underscoring the resilience of bilateral frameworks.

Recent High-Level Visits and Diplomatic Engagements

Recent years have witnessed both continuity and recalibration in diplomatic engagements. Frequent prime ministerial and ministerial visits over the last decade strengthened cooperation in connectivity, trade, and energy. However, the post-2024 phase marked a turning point in tone rather than structure. In 2026, India welcomed the new political leadership in Bangladesh, with high-level congratulatory exchanges and invitations for official visits, signalling continuity in diplomatic outreach despite political change. At the same time, Bangladesh’s leadership has emphasized a “balanced and mutually beneficial relationship”, indicating a desire to diversify foreign policy while maintaining ties with India. Institutional dialogues such as the Joint Consultative Commission (JCC) and defence cooperation mechanisms continue, including joint exercises like Sampriti. However, analysts observe that while elite-level diplomacy remains active, public sentiment has become more volatile, creating a dual-layered dynamic in bilateral engagement.

Key Areas of Cooperation

India–Bangladesh cooperation remains multidimensional and structurally significant. Economically, India is among Bangladesh’s largest trading partners, with bilateral trade historically exceeding $18 billion, though recent estimates suggest stabilisation around $13–14 billion amid emerging tensions and policy adjustments. Connectivity projects such as the Akhaura–Agartala rail link and inland waterways aim to transform regional logistics into an integrated network linking India’s Northeast with Bangladesh and beyond. However, several projects have faced delays due to administrative bottlenecks, financing constraints, and land acquisition issues—highlighting the implementation gap in bilateral commitments. Energy cooperation remains one of the strongest pillars of the relationship. Notably, India’s electricity exports accounted for over 15% of Bangladesh’s power supply in 2025, reflecting deep interdependence despite political frictions. Experts highlight that such cooperation demonstrates a “functional resilience” in bilateral ties, where economic necessities and infrastructure dependencies sustain engagement even during diplomatic strain. Security cooperation also remains robust, particularly in counter-terrorism, intelligence sharing, and border management, contributing to stability in India’s Northeast and reinforcing mutual strategic trust.

Emerging Challenges and Frictions

Despite strong ties, several challenges persist and have intensified in recent years. The Teesta water dispute remains unresolved and continues to affect public perception in Bangladesh, where water security is directly linked to agricultural livelihoods and rural stability. Trade tensions have escalated notably. In 2025, both countries imposed restrictions on each other’s goods, affecting trade worth nearly $770 million, signalling a shift towards calibrated economic friction. Bangladesh’s restrictions on Indian exports and India’s retaliatory measures reflect growing protectionism and strategic signalling.

Additionally, India’s withdrawal of transshipment facilities for Bangladeshi exports in 2025 raised concerns about regional trade integration and increased logistical costs for Dhaka, potentially affecting long-term connectivity goals. Domestic political narratives further complicate ties. Incidents related to minority rights, migration debates, and border violence have triggered protests and influenced public opinion, making diplomacy more sensitive, politically charged, and perception-driven. Experts increasingly describe this phase as one of “narrative contestation” alongside strategic cooperation.

Shift Toward ‘People-to-People’ Diplomacy

Bangladesh’s recent emphasis highlights the importance of societal engagement as a stabilizing force in bilateral relations. Cultural exchanges, academic collaborations, tourism, and youth engagement are being promoted as instruments to rebuild trust and deepen long-term connectivity.

India’s continued scholarship programs and training initiatives for Bangladeshi officials reinforce this approach, while also contributing to capacity-building and institutional linkages. Experts argue that “state-centric diplomacy alone is insufficient in an era of politicised public opinion,” making people-to-people ties essential for long-term stability.

This shift also reflects an understanding that perception gaps at the grassroots level can undermine even the strongest strategic partnerships, necessitating a more inclusive and socially grounded diplomatic approach.An equally significant yet often overlooked factor shaping contemporary India–Bangladesh relations is the role of information ecosystems and digital narratives in influencing bilateral perceptions. In recent years, the rapid expansion of social media platforms, vernacular news outlets, and cross-border digital consumption has amplified the speed at which misinformation, political rhetoric, and identity-based narratives circulate between the two societies. This has contributed to periodic spikes in public distrust, even when official diplomatic channels remain stable and cooperative. Notably, digitally driven narratives around migration, border management, and cultural identity have begun to shape electoral discourse and public opinion in both countries, thereby constraining diplomatic flexibility. For policymakers, this presents a new challenge: managing not just traditional statecraft, but also perception diplomacy in the digital age. Addressing this requires institutional collaboration in media literacy, fact-checking partnerships, and responsible information-sharing mechanisms between the two governments. Furthermore, encouraging academic exchanges, journalist collaborations, and civil society dialogue can help counter polarising narratives and foster a more nuanced understanding of bilateral realities. In this context, the sustainability of India–Bangladesh relations will increasingly depend on their ability to navigate the intersection of diplomacy, technology, and public perception in an era of information volatility.

Geopolitical Dimension

The geopolitical dimension has become more pronounced in 2025–2026. China’s expanding presence in Bangladesh—through infrastructure investments, connectivity projects, and defence cooperation—has introduced a competitive dynamic in the region.

Analysts suggest that Bangladesh is pursuing a “multi-vector foreign policy”, balancing relations with India and China to maximise strategic and economic gains. As one expert notes, “Bangladesh needs both India and China in pragmatic terms,” highlighting a strategy of hedging rather than alignment.

For India, this underscores the need to strengthen engagement not only at the government level but also at the societal, economic, and developmental levels to remain a preferred and trusted partner.A critical yet underexplored dimension of India–Bangladesh relations in 2025–2026 is the growing salience of economic nationalism and supply chain recalibration within Bangladesh’s domestic policy framework. Dhaka is increasingly prioritising industrial self-reliance, export diversification, and resilience against external shocks, particularly in the wake of global disruptions and currency pressures. This has translated into a more cautious approach toward trade dependencies, including those with India, thereby subtly reshaping bilateral economic engagement. Simultaneously, Bangladesh’s ambition to transition from a Least Developed Country (LDC) to a developing economy by 2026 is influencing its external partnerships, pushing it to negotiate more competitive trade terms and safeguard domestic industries. From an Indian perspective, this shift necessitates a recalibration of engagement strategies—from a predominantly assistance-driven model to one centred on co-development, technology transfer, and value chain integration. Experts suggest that aligning with Bangladesh’s developmental priorities, particularly in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, digital services, and green infrastructure, could create a more sustainable and mutually beneficial partnership. This evolving economic posture underscores that future bilateral stability will depend not only on strategic alignment but also on economic adaptability and responsiveness to domestic transformation.

Strategic Significance for India

Bangladesh remains crucial for India’s Act East Policy, connectivity to the Northeast, and maritime security in the Bay of Bengal. Its geographic position makes it indispensable for regional integration, supply chains, and economic corridors. India has extended nearly $10 billion in Lines of Credit to Bangladesh, reflecting its role as a key development partner. However, delays in project implementation have raised concerns about delivery efficiency and institutional coordination. Strategically, a stable Bangladesh is essential for managing border security, migration issues, and regional stability. Experts describe the relationship as “too important to fail,” given the depth of interdependence across economic, strategic, and societal domains.

Way Forward

To sustain and deepen ties, both countries should focus on resolving pending issues like the Teesta dispute through political consensus while insulating critical areas of cooperation from domestic political fluctuations. Accelerating connectivity and infrastructure projects must remain a priority, alongside enhancing sub-regional cooperation frameworks such as BBIN.

Concluding a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) by 2026 could significantly boost economic integration, reduce trade barriers, and address structural imbalances. There is also a need to streamline regulatory frameworks, reduce non-tariff barriers, and modernise border infrastructure.

Expanding digital cooperation, education partnerships, and media engagement can help align public narratives and counter misinformation. Experts emphasize that the future of India–Bangladesh relations will depend on “balancing strategic interests with sensitivity to domestic political realities,” making diplomacy more adaptive, inclusive, and forward-looking.

To stabilise and future-proof India–Bangladesh relations amid evolving geopolitical and domestic pressures, a calibrated and forward-looking policy approach is essential. First, both countries must institutionalise dispute-resolution mechanisms, particularly on water-sharing and border management, to prevent periodic tensions from escalating into public mistrust. Second, accelerating the implementation of connectivity and infrastructure projects through time-bound delivery frameworks will help restore credibility and unlock regional economic potential.

Third, India should transition from a primarily credit-based engagement model to one focused on co-production, technology partnerships, and private sector integration, aligning with Bangladesh’s developmental aspirations. Fourth, both governments must invest in structured people-to-people initiatives, including academic exchanges, media collaborations, and youth engagement platforms, to counter misinformation and strengthen societal trust.

Fifth, enhancing coordination in the Bay of Bengal region through maritime security dialogues and sustainable development initiatives can reinforce shared strategic interests. Finally, both sides must adopt a “de-politicised cooperation framework”, insulating critical bilateral sectors from domestic political fluctuations to ensure continuity and long-term stability.

Conclusion

Bangladesh’s call for prioritizing “people-to-people ties” is not a departure from strong bilateral relations, but rather an evolution of them. It reflects a nuanced understanding that diplomacy must move beyond state corridors into societal connections. India and Bangladesh today stand at a mature phase of engagement—marked by deep cooperation but also requiring careful management of sensitivities. The developments of 2025–2026 clearly indicate that while economic and strategic interdependence remains strong, political and societal frictions are rising simultaneously, creating a complex but manageable dynamic. This duality defines the current phase of bilateral relations and will shape its future trajectory.

If both nations successfully integrate strategic interests with public engagement, the relationship can emerge as a model for regional cooperation—anchored not just in history and geography, but in shared aspirations for growth, stability, and mutual respect. In an increasingly complex geopolitical environment, the success of India–Bangladesh relations will depend on their ability to transform interdependence into trust, and cooperation into a resilient, future-oriented partnership.

By: Sonalika Singh, Consulting Editor, GSDN

The dramatic rescue of a United States airman deep within Iranian territory stands as one of the most complex and high-risk special operations missions in recent military history. Conducted under intense geopolitical tension and active hostilities, the operation combined advanced technology, elite military training, and rapid decision-making to retrieve a stranded weapons systems officer (WSO) from hostile terrain. More than a story of tactical success, the mission reflects the evolving nature of warfare, where precision, coordination, and resilience define outcomes in environments far beyond conventional battlefields. 

The episode began with the downing of an American F-15E Strike Eagle over southwestern Iran, an incident that immediately escalated tensions in an already volatile conflict. The aircraft, a twin-seat fighter designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, carried two crew members, a pilot and a WSO. While the pilot was located and extracted relatively quickly, the WSO landed in far more dangerous circumstances, isolated in mountainous terrain within Iran’s Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province. From that moment onward, the situation transformed into a race against time, as both American and Iranian forces sought to locate him. 

The urgency was not merely tactical but strategic. For Iran, capturing an American serviceman would have represented a significant political and psychological victory, offering leverage in an ongoing conflict marked by escalating strikes and counterstrikes. Tehran’s decision to publicly announce a bounty and mobilize local networks underscored the importance it placed on capturing the airman. For the United States, the imperative was equally clear no soldier could be left behind, particularly in enemy territory where capture could have far-reaching consequences for morale, diplomacy, and domestic politics. 

At the center of this unfolding drama was the airman himself. Trained under the rigorous Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) doctrine, he became the first line of defense in his own rescue. SERE training is designed precisely for such scenarios when a pilot is isolated behind enemy lines with limited resources and must rely on instinct, discipline, and adaptability. Reports indicate that the WSO demonstrated these principles effectively, moving through rugged terrain, avoiding detection, and maintaining communication readiness. His decision to climb to an elevated ridge near Dehdasht and activate an encrypted emergency beacon proved pivotal, transforming his uncertain position into a traceable point for rescue planners. 

The beacon became the operational anchor for the United States military. Once the signal was confirmed, planning shifted from search to extraction. The responsibility for the mission fell to the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), which assembled a multi-layered rescue package combining airpower, special forces, and intelligence assets. The operation involved elite units such as Delta Force and Pararescuemen from the 24th Special Tactics Squadron, supported by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment widely known as the “Night Stalkers.” These units represent the pinnacle of American military capability, trained specifically for high-risk, time-sensitive missions in hostile environments. 

Air support played a critical role in enabling the operation. A-10 Warthog aircraft provided close air support, targeting advancing Iranian forces and establishing a defensive perimeter around the extraction zone. These aircraft, known for their durability and precision in ground attack roles, were instrumental in suppressing threats from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij militia units converging on the area. Meanwhile, HC-130J tankers ensured sustained aerial operations by refueling aircraft involved in the mission, highlighting the logistical complexity required to maintain such an operation deep within enemy territory. 

The execution phase of the mission was marked by both precision and unpredictability. Special operations forces were inserted under the cover of darkness, navigating a highly contested environment where the risk of detection and engagement was constant. Reports suggest that the United States established a temporary “fire zone” around the WSO’s location, using precision strikes to neutralize potential threats and restrict enemy movement. This approach created a controlled operational space within hostile territory, allowing rescue teams to maneuver with reduced risk. 

However, the mission did not proceed without complications. One of the most striking developments was the reported malfunction and subsequent destruction of two C-130 transport aircraft at a forward arming and refueling point inside Iran. Rather than risk sensitive equipment falling into enemy hands, American forces deliberately destroyed the aircraft. This decision reflects a critical aspect of modern military operations, the prioritization of technological security alongside personnel recovery. The destruction of these aircraft echoed historical precedents, notably the failed Operation Eagle Claw in 1980, yet with a key difference the mission ultimately succeeded despite the setback. 

The extraction itself unfolded under sustained enemy fire, transforming what was intended as a rapid “get-in, get-out” operation into a prolonged engagement. Iranian forces, including local militias and possibly irregularfighters, engaged the rescue teams, forcing them to adapt in real time. The presence of small arms of fire reported strikes on helicopters, and the need for continued air support illustrates the intensity of the firefight. Despite these challenges, the rescue teams successfully secured the WSO and evacuated him from Iranian territory without any reported American fatalities. 

The success of the mission carries significant implications for both military strategy and geopolitical dynamics. From a tactical perspective, it demonstrates the capability of American special operations forces to conduct complex missions deep within hostile environments. The integration of intelligence, airpower, and ground operations highlights the effectiveness of a networked approach to warfare, where multiple assets operate in coordination to achieve a single objective. The role of intelligence, particularly in locating the airman, underscores the importance of advanced surveillance and tracking capabilities in modern conflicts. 

At the same time, the mission reveals the inherent risks and limitations of such operations. The need to deploy elite forces, multiple aircraft, and extensive logistical support for the recovery of a single individual underscores the high stakes involved. It also highlights the vulnerability of even advanced military systems in contested environments, where unexpected challenges can quickly alter the course of an operation. The destruction of aircraft, the engagement with local forces, and the prolonged duration of the mission all point to the complexity of operating in a region with active resistance and uncertain conditions. 

From a geopolitical standpoint, the rescue operation reinforces the broader dynamics of the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran. The downing of the F-15E itself signals the presence of effective Iranian air defense capabilities, challenging assumptions about air superiority. The subsequent rescue mission, while successful, underscores the extent to which the conflict has escalated, requiring direct military engagement on Iranian soil. This escalation carries implications for regional stability, particularly in relation to critical areas such as the Strait of Hormuz, where tensions have already impacted global energy markets. 

The psychological dimension of the operation is equally significant. For the United States, the successful rescue reinforces a longstanding military ethos, the commitment to recover personnel under any circumstances. This principle serves as a powerful motivator for service members, reinforcing trust in the institution and its leadership. For Iran, the inability to capture the airman represents a missed opportunity to gain strategic leverage, particularly in a conflict where symbolic victories can carry substantial weight. 

The narrative surrounding the operation has also been shaped by differing accounts from both sides. While American officials have emphasized the success and precision of the mission, Iranian authorities have contested these claims, asserting that the operation was disrupted and that multiple American aircraft were destroyed. These conflicting narratives reflect the broader information dynamics of modern warfare, where control over perception is as important as control over territory. 

Ultimately, the rescue of the stranded airman stands as a testament to the capabilities and complexities of contemporary military operations. It illustrates how individual survival, advanced training, and coordinated force projection intersect in moments of crisis. The airman’s reliance on SERE training, the precision of the rescue forces, and the adaptability of the mission all contributed to an outcome that could easily have been far more costly. 

Yet, the operation also serves as a reminder of the broader context in which such missions occur. It highlights the fragile balance between capability and risk, success, and escalation. While the rescue itself may be viewed as a tactical triumph, it is embedded within a larger conflict that continues to evolve, carrying implications far beyond the immediate circumstances of a single mission. 

Hence, the US pilot rescue in Iran is not merely a story of daring and heroism, but a reflection of the realities of modern warfare. It encapsulates the intersection of human resilience, technological sophistication, and geopolitical tension, offering a glimpse into the challenges and possibilities that define military operations in the twenty-first century. 

By: Prachi Kushwah, Research Analyst, GSDN

The political slogan “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) has emerged as one of the most influential and debated ideas in modern United States politics. Popularized during the presidential campaign of Donald Trump, the phrase has grown far beyond a campaign tagline into a broader ideological movement. Since Trump formally announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015, MAGA has represented a call for economic revival, national sovereignty, and cultural reassertion. However, the central question remains whether MAGA has fulfilled its promise as a dream realized or whether it continues as a work-in-progress shaped by political, economic, and global challenges.

At its core, MAGA reflects a sense of dissatisfaction among sections of the American population who believe that the country’s global standing and domestic prosperity have declined. The movement appeals to nostalgia, invoking an era when the United States was perceived to have stronger economic dominance, stable industrial growth, and clearer national identity. Yet, translating this aspiration into policy outcomes has proven complex, raising questions about feasibility, inclusiveness, and long-term sustainability.

Origins and Ideological Foundations of MAGA

The origins of MAGA lie in a blend of populism, nationalism, and economic protectionism. While the phrase itself has historical precedents, its modern articulation during the 2016 United States presidential election transformed it into a cohesive political doctrine. The campaign emphasized reducing dependency on foreign economies, strengthening domestic industries, and prioritizing American workers.

A significant aspect of the ideology is its opposition to what it terms as “globalism,” which is viewed as responsible for outsourcing jobs and weakening national borders. By advocating for stronger immigration controls and trade protections, MAGA positioned itself as a corrective force against decades of liberal economic policies. This ideological framing resonated particularly with working-class communities affected by deindustrialization and wage stagnation.

However, critics argue that the ideological foundation of MAGA relies heavily on selective historical interpretation. The notion of returning to a “great” past often overlooks structural inequalities and global interdependence that define the modern world. As such, while the vision is compelling to its supporters, its practical implementation remains contested.

Economic Policies: Promise and Performance

Economic reform stands at the heart of the MAGA agenda. One of the most notable legislative achievements was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), signed into law on December 22, 2017. The policy aimed to reduce corporate tax rates and stimulate economic investment. Proponents claim that it boosted business confidence and contributed to job creation, while critics highlight that a significant portion of the benefits accrued to corporations and high-income groups.

Trade policy also underwent substantial changes. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), originally implemented on January 1, 1994, was replaced by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) on July 1, 2020. This renegotiation sought to create fairer conditions for American workers, especially in manufacturing sectors. Additionally, tariffs imposed on imports from countries such as China were intended to reduce trade deficits and encourage domestic production.

While these measures produced mixed outcomes, they also introduced economic uncertainties. Retaliatory tariffs affected exporters, and supply chain disruptions created challenges for industries reliant on global networks. The economic trajectory was further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic, declared a global crisis on March 11, 2020, which required stimulus measures exceeding US$ 2 trillion. This demonstrated that while MAGA policies aimed for self-reliance, global events continued to shape economic realities.

Immigration and Border Security

Immigration policy has been one of the most defining aspects of the MAGA movement. A central promise was the construction of a border wall to prevent illegal immigration. On January 25, 2017, an executive order was issued to begin this process. The policy symbolized a broader commitment to national security and control over borders.

In addition to physical infrastructure, the administration introduced stricter enforcement measures, including changes to asylum rules and travel restrictions for certain countries. Supporters viewed these steps as necessary to protect jobs and ensure safety, while critics argued that they undermined humanitarian values and damaged the country’s global image.

The debate over immigration under MAGA reflects a deeper ideological divide. It raises questions about identity, diversity, and the balance between security and openness. While the movement emphasizes sovereignty, its long-term implications for a nation historically shaped by immigration remain uncertain.

Foreign Policy and Global Positioning

MAGA’s foreign policy is characterized by the principle of “America First,” which prioritizes national interests over multilateral commitments. This approach led to significant decisions such as the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, announced on June 1, 2017. The rationale was to protect domestic industries from regulatory constraints, though it drew criticism for undermining global climate efforts.

Diplomatic strategies also shifted, including direct engagement with adversaries. A notable example was the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un on June 12, 2018. While it marked a historic moment in diplomacy, its long-term effectiveness remains debated.

Relations with allies were also redefined, with increased emphasis on shared financial responsibilities within international organizations. This recalibration reflected a broader attempt to reshape global leadership dynamics, though it sometimes strained traditional alliances.

Cultural and Political Impact

Beyond policies, MAGA has significantly influenced the cultural and political landscape of the United States. It has mobilized a strong base of supporters who view it as a defense of national identity and traditional values. At the same time, it has intensified political polarization, contributing to divisions across social and ideological lines.

The United States presidential election held on November 3, 2020, demonstrated the enduring strength of the movement. Despite electoral defeat, MAGA continued to shape political discourse and party dynamics. Events such as those on January 6, 2021, further highlighted the intensity of political engagement associated with the movement.

MAGA has also redefined the direction of the Republican Party, aligning it more closely with populist and nationalist themes. This transformation suggests that its influence extends beyond a single leader, embedding itself within broader political structures.

Achievements and Criticisms

Evaluating MAGA requires a balanced perspective. On one hand, it successfully brought attention to critical issues such as trade imbalances, industrial decline, and border security. It demonstrated the power of political messaging in mobilizing large segments of the population.

On the other hand, the movement has faced criticism for policy inconsistencies and unintended consequences. Economic measures such as tariffs created disruptions, while foreign policy decisions sometimes weakened alliances. Additionally, critics argue that its rhetoric has contributed to social divisions and challenged democratic norms.

These contrasting outcomes indicate that while MAGA has achieved certain objectives, it has also generated new challenges, reinforcing the idea that it remains an evolving project rather than a completed vision.

Conclusion

In conclusion, “Make America Great Again” represents both an aspiration and an ongoing process. It is a dream in its promise to restore national strength and identity, and a work-in-progress in its practical implementation. The movement has reshaped political discourse, influenced policy decisions, and mobilized millions of supporters.

However, its long-term success depends on its ability to address structural challenges, adapt to global realities, and balance competing priorities. As of 2026, MAGA continues to evolve, reflecting the complexities of governance in a rapidly changing world. Whether it ultimately fulfills its promise or remains a contested vision will depend on how its principles are translated into sustainable and inclusive outcomes.

By:Sonalika Singh, Consulting Editor, GSDN

The India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), unveiled during the G20 Summit in New Delhi in September 2023, was envisioned as a transformative transcontinental initiative designed to reshape global trade, connectivity, and economic cooperation. Conceived as a multi-modal network integrating ports, railways, shipping lanes, energy pipelines, and digital infrastructure, IMEC aimed to connect India with Europe via the Gulf region, offering a faster, more efficient, and strategically diversified alternative to traditional maritime routes such as the Suez Canal. Nearly three years since its announcement, the corridor remains one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects of the 21st century, yet its progress reflects a complex interplay of geopolitical realities, economic constraints, and evolving strategic priorities. The status of IMEC is best understood as a project in transition neither stalled nor fully operational, but gradually evolving through phased development, regional leadership, and adaptive strategies. 

At its core, IMEC represents a convergence of strategic interests among its founding members India, the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, France, Germany, Italy, and the European Union. The corridor is structured around two principal segments: the Eastern Corridor linking India to the Gulf, and the Northern Corridor connecting the Gulf to Europe via rail and maritime networks. The initiative is embedded within the broader framework of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII), a G7-led effort aimed at addressing global infrastructure gaps through sustainable and transparent financing mechanisms. From the outset, IMEC was positioned not merely as a connectivity project but as a geopolitical and economic statement an alternative model to existing infrastructure paradigms, particularly China’s Belt and Road Initiative. 

However, the trajectory of IMEC since its launch has been shaped significantly by external disruptions. The most immediate and consequential setback emerged from the escalation of conflict in West Asia, particularly the Israel–Hamas war beginning in late 2023. This conflict directly affected the viability of the Northern Corridor, which relies on political stability and cooperation across countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel. The deterioration of diplomatic normalization efforts in the region, which had been a foundational assumption for IMEC’s design, introduced uncertainty into project timelines and investor confidence. As a result, progress on key segments of the corridor slowed, and the project entered a phase of strategic recalibration. 

Despite these challenges, IMEC has not lost momentum entirely. Instead, its development has become more regionally concentrated and incrementally structured. One of the most notable areas of progress has been the strengthening of bilateral and trilateral frameworks among key stakeholders, particularly between India and the United Arab Emirates. The signing of the Intergovernmental Framework Agreement (IGFA) between these two countries marked a significant step toward operationalizing elements of the corridor. This agreement focuses on building a joint logistics platform, enhancing digital connectivity, and streamlining supply chain processes. It reflects a pragmatic approach to IMEC’s implementation, prioritizing segments that are politically stable and economically viable while deferring to more complex components. 

Parallel to diplomatic efforts, there have been tangible developments in infrastructure planning and early-stage construction. By 2025, groundwork had begun on select components of the corridor, including port upgrades, logistics hubs, and preliminary rail link planning in the Gulf region. These developments are closely aligned with national economic strategies of Gulf countries, particularly Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and the UAE’s Operation 300bn. Both countries have leveraged IMEC as an extension of their domestic transformation agendas, investing heavily in port modernization, industrial zones, and digital infrastructure. This alignment has effectively positioned the Gulf region as the operational nucleus of IMEC, even as broader geopolitical uncertainties persist. 

The role of Gulf economies in sustaining IMEC’s progress cannot be overstated. The UAE and Saudi Arabia, situated at the geographic center of the corridor, have emerged as key drivers of its development. Their sovereign wealth funds, including entities such as Mubadala, ADQ, and the Public Investment Fund, have increased investments in logistics, energy, and technology sectors that are integral to IMEC’s vision. These investments are not merely preparatory but transformative, aiming to convert the region from a transit hub into a production and innovation ecosystem. Industrial zones such as Khalifa Industrial Zone Abu Dhabi (KIZAD) and King Abdullah Economic City are being developed as integrated nodes that combine manufacturing, logistics, and digital capabilities, thereby embedding IMEC within broader economic diversification strategies. 

Another critical dimension of IMEC’s status is the advancement of its digital and energy components. Unlike physical infrastructure, which is more susceptible to geopolitical disruptions, digital connectivity projects have progressed with relatively fewer constraints. Plans for undersea data cables, cross-border data centers, and digital trade platforms are moving forward, supported by the Gulf’s investments in artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure. Similarly, the corridor’s energy ambitions, particularly in green hydrogen and renewable energy, have gained traction. Projects aimed at linking renewable energy grids and facilitating cross-border energy trade are being explored, with initiatives such as the proposed India-UAE undersea electricity interconnector reflecting the corridor’s long-term vision of sustainable energy integration. 

Financial considerations remain a central challenge in IMEC’s implementation. The corridor is estimated to require substantial investment, with broader PGII targets aiming to mobilize up to $600 billion by 2027. However, the absence of a clearly defined financial roadmap and cost-sharing mechanism among participating countries has slowed progress. High global interest rates, economic uncertainty, and competing investment priorities have further complicated funding efforts. In response, there has been a growing emphasis on leveraging public-private partnerships, sovereign wealth funds, and multilateral development banks to bridge financing gaps. The involvement of institutions such as the World Bank and the European Union’s Global Gateway initiative is expected to play a crucial role in mobilizing resources and ensuring project viability. 

The interplay between geopolitical dynamics and economic considerations continues to shape IMEC’s trajectory. Trade tensions, particularly between India and the United States, have introduced additional complexities. The imposition of tariffs and shifts in trade policy have affected investor sentiment and delayed certain collaborative initiatives. At the same time, strategic cooperation in areas such as defense and technology has remainedintact, highlighting the nuanced nature of bilateral relationships within the corridor’s framework. This duality underscores the importance of selective cooperation and targeted policy adjustments in sustaining IMEC’s progress. 

From a broader perspective, IMEC’s status reflects a shift from a grand, unified vision to a more modular and adaptive approach. Instead of pursuing simultaneous development across all segments, stakeholders are focusing on achievable milestones that build credibility and momentum. This phased strategy involves prioritizing politically stable routes, advancing digital and energy projects, and gradually expanding the corridor’s scope as conditions improve. The emphasis on incremental progress is not a retreat from ambition but a recognition of the complexities inherent in transnational infrastructure projects. 

The competitive landscape also influences IMEC’s development. Established trade routes such as the Suez Canal continue to dominate global shipping due to their reliability and cost-effectiveness. While IMEC promises significant reductions in transit time and logistics costs, these benefits remain contingent on full operationalization. In the interim, the corridor is being positioned as a complementary route rather than a direct replacement, offering diversification and resilience in global supply chains. This strategic positioning is particularly relevant in the context of recent disruptions, such as the Suez Canal blockage in 2021 and ongoing instability in maritime routes, which have highlighted the need for alternative pathways. 

Institutional mechanisms and governance structures are emerging as critical components of IMEC’s implementation. Discussions around establishing a dedicated IMEC Secretariat, sector-specific task forces, and a global corridor forum indicate a growing recognition of the need for coordinated planning and execution. Think tanks, financial institutions, and industry stakeholders are increasingly being involved in shaping the corridorroadmap, conducting feasibility studies, and addressing regulatory challenges. These efforts aim to create a cohesive framework that aligns diverse national interests while ensuring operational efficiency. 

Looking ahead, the timeline for IMEC’s full realization remains uncertain but not indefinite. Analysts suggest a phased recovery and development trajectory spanning the latter half of the decade. The period between 2025 and 2026 is expected to focus on stabilization and foundational investments, particularly in the India-Gulf segment. The subsequent phase, extending to 2028, may see expanded multilateral participation and the scaling of logistics and energy projects. By the end of the decade, IMEC could evolve into a partially operational corridor, integrating physical, digital, and energy networks into a cohesive system. 

Therefore, the status of the India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor reflects both the promise and the complexity of large-scale international infrastructure initiatives. While geopolitical disruptions and financial uncertainties have slowed down its initial momentum, the project continues to advance through targeted investments, regional leadership, and adaptive strategies. The Gulf region has emerged as the central engine driving progress, supported by evolving partnerships and incremental implementation. IMEC’s journey underscores the importance of resilience, flexibility, and sustained cooperation in navigating the challenges of global connectivity projects. As the corridor continues to take shape, its ultimate success will depend on the ability of its stakeholders to align strategic interests, mobilize resources, and maintain a long-term commitment to a shared vision of economic integration and sustainable development.