After ousting the Maduro regime in Venezuela, the US has redirected its emphasis back on Iran. On January 22, 2026, President Trump had issued a warning to Tehran, stating that the United States has an “armada” heading toward Iran. This came after the US had forewarned Iran against killing protestors and restarting its nuclear program. Speculation surrounding a potential U.S. military strike on Iran has intensified amid escalating regional tensions. Although Washington retains overwhelming conventional superiority, underestimating Iran would be deeply flawed. Unlike U.S. intervention in Venezuela, Iran presents a complex strategic challenge with far-reaching consequences. Iran being a uniquely resilient adversary, any conflict would risk regional escalation and produce significant global economic and geopolitical repercussions. This article analyzes the risks, resistance, and ripple effect of any US-Iran conflict on India as well as on the global power structures.
STRIKING IRAN: IMMINENT CONFLICT BUT UNCERTAIN VICTORY
Despite all the bluff and bluster, striking Iran won’t be a cakewalk, as many might assume. Iran is fundamentally different from previous U.S. adversaries like Iraq or Libya in the region. Tehran’s deterrence strategy is built around asymmetric warfare rather than conventional force parity. Over the years, Iran has developed a large and diversified missile arsenal capable of targeting U.S. bases, regional allies, and critical infrastructure across West Asia. This means any military action won’t remain confined to Iran; it would reverberate across the entire Middle East. Given the risk involved, the US has amassed a major military buildup, including the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and several guided-missile destroyers, along with additional air-defense systems, which could be critical to guard against any Iranian strike on US bases in the region. However, Iran’s extensive use of hardened facilities, underground installations, and dispersed command structures reduces the effectiveness of air strikes.
Geography and demography further disrupt chances of success of any US invasion. Iran’s vast landmass, mountainous terrain, expansive deserts, and dense urban centers make any large-scale ground operations unfeasible. Without boots on the ground, even limited air strikes would struggle to decisively topple the Iranian regime. Demographically, Iran possesses a large population of over 85 million and a strong sense of nationalism that would likely unify society against foreign intervention. Additionally, Tehran has cultivated a network of aligned proxies like Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, and the Houthis, providing it with strategic depth and the capability to engage multiple fronts simultaneously, stretching U.S. and allied forces across the region. Furthermore, Iran could retaliate by disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which nearly a fifth of global oil trade passes. These factors make a military confrontation with Iran a high-risk proposition not only for America but for the world.
INDIA’S STRATEGIC CALCULUS
In the event of a U.S.-Iran conflict, India will find itself walking a strategic tightrope. Due to its policy of multi-alignment, India has strategic ties with both Washington and Tehran, putting it into a rather precarious situation. Evaluating from a pragmatic standpoint, India has its stakes on both sides. With Iran, India has a partnership involving energy security, regional connectivity initiatives such as the Chabahar port, and ethno-religious ties. Any aggression on Iran would jeopardize Indian investments in Chabahar and might create unrest within its Shia population. On one hand, India has a strategic partnership with the United States, particularly in defense, technology, and Indo-Pacific security. Ideally, India will not root for a regime change in Iran. Historically, the Khomeini regime had benefited India by creating a global Shia-Sunni divide, which in turn helped India in taming radical Islamism in India, particularly in Kashmir.
However, India is also aware of Iran’s anarchist policies in the Middle East, which in turn threaten regional peace and stability. New Delhi, therefore, would pursue a policy of strategic restraint and diplomatic engagement. India has extended its support to ongoing Iran-U.S. talks in Oman and would hope for a peaceful and timely resolution. Nonetheless, India also prepares itself for a future U.S. strike on Iran. This was manifested in the Union budget, in which India has cut its budgetary allocation for Chabahar to net zero in 2026. It shows India is hedging its bets for every eventuality. In a nutshell, India’s likely approach would be strategic neutrality—calling for de-escalation, protecting its economic interests, and quietly engaging all sides diplomatically. India would also be wary of precedent. A unilateral military strike undermining sovereignty and international norms could set dangerous standards in an already unstable global order.
IMPLICATIONS ON GLOBAL POWER DYNAMICS
A likely U.S.–Iran clash would have far-reaching implications for global power dynamics, extending well beyond West Asia. Tehran has already warned that any strike on Iran would warrant a massive retaliatory strike on all U.S. allies in the region. Such a conflict would likely accelerate great-power rivalry and deepen global fragmentation. Iran would move closer to China and Russia, strengthening counter-U.S. alignments and reinforcing the shift toward a multipolar order. Regional allies, exposed to Iranian retaliation, may reassess the reliability of U.S. security guarantees and pursue greater strategic autonomy. Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would destabilize global energy markets, triggering inflation and economic uncertainty, particularly for energy-importing states. At the systemic level, unilateral military action risks eroding international norms governing sovereignty and the use of force, weakening global institutions. Overall, a U.S.–Iran war would likely weaken global stability and hasten the transition to a more contested international order.
