As missiles streak across West Asia and the Strait of Hormuz casts a shadow on global trade, retaliatory attacks on Gulf nations reverberate far beyond the region. From Washington to Beijing, Gulf monarchies to the EU, every power feels the tremors of a war that strains alliances, destabilises economies, and redefines security. Ambassador Anil Trigunayat, veteran West Asia expert and former ambassador to Jordan, Libya, and Malta, offers an unparalleled insight into the ongoing crisis in an exclusive interview with Arti Bali.
Q: With India chairing BRICS in May, how do you see the foreign ministers’ meeting unfolding, given the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s stance on Iran?
A: Yes indeed, at this stage, it is difficult to envision an amicable interaction and outcomes among the conflicting member states. The trust deficit between Gulf countries, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and Iran has further deepened due to numerous strikes on these countries under the pretext of hitting US bases. Violation of their sovereignty is a key issue. If the war stops today, it will take a long time to bridge that deficit. But then, BRICS by itself has several countries with bilateral problems and issues, and given the fact that GCC countries are disenchanted with the US security cover or the lack of it, they have begun to diversify their geopolitical and geo-economic interests with alternate structures like BRICS. India, being the chair, is already in touch with all the member states. PM Narendra Modi has repeatedly spoken to many regional leaders, and with smart and adept diplomacy, the Indian leadership should be able to minimise the impact.
Q: Do some countries benefit from the war, with China exploiting a distracted US and Russia profiting from unsanctioned oil sales?
A: Since, in my view, the US, especially President Donald Trump, was played into this war by Israeli PM Netanyahu with an imminent threat scare, Washington went in without a strategy and continued to invent new war objectives; their position and friendly support had been lacking. Since the war is turning out to be costly with over USD 30 billion spent without the desired outcome, the USA is asking Gulf countries to foot the bill. As the NATO countries have overtly stayed out, Trump is threatening to claim victory and quit, leaving the now regulated Start of Hormuz in Iranian hands. If, however, he decides to expand the war through the occupation of some islands like Kharg, Abu Musa, and Bandar Abbas, or with boots on the ground, guerrilla and all-out war will begin, which will be disastrous for the region. Trump is also domestically stretched with rising costs, MAGA disenchantment, and greater chances of losing the Lower House. In such an uncertain scenario, Russia obviously gains as sanctions have been lifted on its oil, but Moscow is embroiled in its own war of attrition. China is playing its cards quietly and smartly, as for Beijing both Iran and the GCC are equally important. But if its economic interests get hurt with a prolonged war, Beijing will feel the pinch. No one will be a winner in the war, and there will be plenty of losers.
Q: How might the US respond to countries resisting Trump’s demands, like Venezuela, and possibly Cuba?
A: Well, Trump is exceptional and unpredictable. He has several targets, including Cuba, but the fact that a Russian oil tanker was able to walk past the blockade to Havana speaks for itself. Tariffs, his favourite tool and their arbitrary and frequent use, cannot be written off.
Q: India initially stayed silent after Iran’s Supreme Leader was killed. What does this delay signal about its stance?
A: I think it is not necessary to react immediately to evolving situations, but the Indian foreign secretary went to the Iranian Embassy to sign the condolence book when it was opened. In addition, PM Modi and EAM Dr S Jaishankar have spoken to their counterparts a couple of times. Iran repeatedly referred to India as a friend and allowed Indian oil tankers to pass through Hormuz. It helped in the evacuation of thousand plus Indian students and others despite the ongoing war. It is clear that the Iranians understand everything. Also, the Indian statement typesetting respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity in the immediate aftermath of strikes on Iran was implicit in calling out the USA and Israel as aggressors. Ironically, all three are our strategic partners.
Q: How do you see India’s potential role in brokering peace in this war?
A: India has been a trusted interlocutor and is respected by all sides in the conflict. Trump also spoke to PM Modi. The EAM attended and spoke to his G7 counterparts. The PM has been in touch with all leaders. Hence, I believe India is trying its best to see to it that dialogue and diplomacy are resorted to. There are other tracks as well, in trying to diffuse the crisis.
Q: Trump slammed NATO and the UK for not helping the US to secure the Strait of Hormuz. How do you view this stance?
A: It clearly shows that President Trump’s European and NATO partners are not convinced of his war objectives and are not on the same page. France has already offered the Iranians to open the Hormuz, and they will do anything to alleviate the issues. But as both sides have given their conditions, how these will be aligned remains to be seen.
Q: With Iran targeting US bases and calling for a Middle Eastern security framework independent of outside powers, how do you see the situation unfolding?
A: I think the regional countries are also beginning to understand that having US bases has not secured them, and on the contrary, they have become a target and scapegoat for Iranian retaliation. Iran is also a big loser due to the trust it has lost with Gulf countries, hence post-war new equations will emerge, and perhaps an Arab security architecture with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) at its centre may be established.
Q: Who stands to lose the most from a closure of the Strait of Hormuz? Additionally, will Iran be able to implement a toll on Hormuz effectively?
A: In fact, the impact of the closure of Hormuz will be far and wide. All countries that depend on the supply of oil and gas and fertilisers, etc, from the region, and dependence on maritime transit through these Sea Lines of Communications (SLOCs) will be impacted. Increasing oil and gas prices and disruption in shipping and supply chains will impact all countries, even if in varying degrees, including India.
Q: Could the Gulf gain more from a prolonged war than a swift peace without a regional security framework?
A: I don’t think the Gulf will gain, and all will be losers. Trust deficit is unbridgeable at this stage. No one is sure what and how much arsenal the Iranians possess. Almost all warring parties are facing the depletion of their firepower.
Q: Now that the Houthis are firing at Israel and Hezbollah is re-engaged, is a full regional conflagration already underway?
A: Iran had four proxies in Houthis (Yemen), Hezbollah (Lebanon), Hamas (Gaza), and Kataib Hezbollah (Iraq). Even though during the ongoing Israel-Hamas war and Israel-Hezbollah war, the latter have been decimated, they remain key threats. Houthis were retained as the last resort and have tremendous veracity and fighting power to aid Iran and deter Israel and other shipping in the Red Sea. That could spiral the violence even more.
Q: Is there a rift between Netanyahu and Trump on the war strategy, and how long do both leaders intend to sustain their current approach?
A: Although Trump is unhappy with Netanyahu and his intelligence for not providing him with visible intelligence of Iranian firepower, Mosaic Defence strategy, and continued resilience, his objective for a quick victory has frustrated him. He may not want to get dragged into a prolonged conflict, as it will be difficult to justify body bags yet again. Besides, the Jewish lobby remains very strong in the US. As long as Israel projects itself under existential threat from Iran or any other actor, the US will stand with Israel, and Netanyahu knows it well.
Q: Can Pakistan succeed as a mediator?
A: Pakistan has reasonable relations with Iran and good ones with Trump, and has a Mutual
Defence Agreement with Saudi Arabia. Hence, it is providing its good offices. But beyond being a rentier state, it does not want to get caught in the Riyadh-Tehran war. So, it is acting in its own self-interest. Its nuclear bomb is often projected as an Islamic bomb.
Q: Why is Trump sending mixed signals on Iran, alternating between ending the war and proposing a ground invasion of Kharg, and is he testing his allies?
A: Trump wants to end the war at the earliest on his own terms, at least presumably with a victory lap. Iran also wants to extract its pound of flesh.
Q: Now, after the Iran attack, do North Korea or other countries see possessing nukes as a better way to resist war?
A: Yes, this unfortunately could happen. Ukraine has lamented many times. Iran, sooner or later, may resort to them depending on how the aftermath of the war progresses or what kind of regime emerges there.