Security Wise

India the big loser in the US-Iran War

Posted on April 1, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[The embarked 31st US Marine Expeditionary Brigade on ships nearing the Persian Gulf]

As predicted in my March 10 post — “America preparing to cut and run from Iran“, the US is in fact getting the hell out of the Gulf War. This prediction required no talent for prophesy, just a scan of America’s war record of the last 50 years! 2-3 weeks is what US President Trump is giving himself to wrap things up and call it a day. Because, he claims, he has won the war, “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability, installed a new regime in Tehran. Really, no. The world has wisened up to Trump’s foreign policy by bluff, bullying, lies, exaggeration and hyperbole. The American consumer staring at $4 a gallon fuel is the domestic political reason why the US is upping stakes and vamoosing. It proves my point that Americans have no stomach for war, especially when remote fighting — push a button from an aircraft at 20,000 feet here, destroy a target hundreds of miles away there, is insufficient and the situation calls for transitioning to “boots on the ground”. That means bodybags and the political end of the US President of the day! So, Trump says Bye! Bye! to the Gulf leaving UAE and Riyadh pleading for the US to finish the job of replacing the Ayatollahcracy with a more amenable regime. No go, Abdul!

Trump, moreover, with his unique talent for making enemies of close friends, alienated the Gulf states by not providing them with an impenetrable air defence cover that was promised, and the next thing they knew was everybody running for shelter as Iranian missiles slammed arbitrarily into their military bases with American presence and into skyscrapers making the Dubai, Doha and Qatar skylines a liability for the emirs and sheikhs who saw their tall buildings fall, high-flying international residents flee, businesses consider re-location, and the reputations particularly of UAE and Saudi Arabia as safe havens for fun & investment, crater.

Even as the Pasdaran (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) counter-attacked, Trump crowed that the Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed Salman, would have to “kiss my ass” for help, saying this at a meeting in his Florida White House at Mar-a-lago of Saudi and UAE Sovereign Fund managers who Trump expects will invest billions of dollars in the US and save his political skin! Such crassness from Trump is par for the course because he publicly talked of American bombs raining down on Iran as “beating the shit out of” it! But it will cost America. Salman is no fool and will not take this public insult sitting down. The Saudi and UAE wealth is unlikely to be invested in America.

The European NATO allies who mock Trump as an arriviste and can barely keep the contempt they feel for him under check, refused to enter the war as demanded by him by deploying naval escorts for tankers plying the Strait of Hormuz, and went further. The Leftist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez closed Spain’s airspace to US Air Force planes flying to the Gulf theatre, an action quickly replicated by the Giorgia Meloni regime in Italy and by President Macron of France, who earlier had damned US air strikes against Iran as “unilateral”. Poland then followed by refusing to send one of its Patriot air defence systems to the Gulf as requested by Washington. The Starmer government in the UK did not say no to Trump but is making haste so slowly that by the time the Royal Navy aircraft carrier finally reaches the Gulf the operational need for it will have evaporated — Whitehall’s point! Trump reacted with a post on Truth Social: “build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait, and just TAKE IT. You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Unlike the US President, the European leaders are no idiots, and the “just take it” approach of colonial times will be hard to sustain.

To compound the frustrating situation for the US, the Houthis fired a missile at an American target, promising more fully to get into action. So Trump is looking at a two-punch economic disaster looming for the American and the world economies: the two most critical energy seaways are getting shut down — the Hormuz Strait by Iran, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait (and the Red Sea-Suez route) by the Houthis. And to crown the developments, the US military suffered major hardware losses yesterday – Iranian drone hits blew up an American E-3 AWACS (airborne warning and control system) and several KC-135 refuellers, when these large aircraft were being readied for sorties at the Prince Sultan Base in Saudi Arabia. This is not to mention an alleged Iranian missile strike against the most advanced US aircraft carrier, USS Gerald Ford, anchored off Israel in the Mediterranean, which compelled its removal from the theatre. The rapid expenditure of munitions by its forces has denuded the American inventory so much the US Indo-Pacific commander has warned there’s not much left to fight China with should Xi invade Taiwan at this time!

The biggest winner of the Iran War unsurprisingly is Iran. With its military infrastructure quite literally reduced to powder and pulp with some 13,000 military facilities and installations destroyed by ceaseless US and Israeli bombing, the Islamic Guards still manage — a month into the war, to fire guided munitions to unsettle the US and its camp followers in the Gulf, laughing off Trumps’ threats to take out de-salination plants and civilian power stations, because they have over 417 de-salination plants that have greened desert spots in the Gulf states in their crosshairs. Reducing them to dust would return the emirates, sultanates and sheikhdoms to their original state — local fishing boat berths and caravan serais of yore, a prospect to chill the hearts of these desert rulers (who, of course, will betake themselves with their hundreds of billions of $, to Switzerland!).

Iran, moreover, has lost nothing that it prizes most. Nearly 600 tons of 60% enriched uranium are in tact, stored in an underground complex in Isfahan, geographically almost at the centre of the country, rendering any attempt by US and Israeli Special Forces to capture it, and cart it out of Iran, all but impossible. This vast amount of enriched uranium can, at a pinch, be turned into countless small radiation diffusion devices or “dirty atom bombs”, and are stored in bins deep underground that the Pasdaran guard more zealously than almost anything else in Iran. And further, Iran’s stocks of missiles and drones, and of grain, are being constantly replenished by Russia and China through the Caspian Sea route immune to American interdiction, with Moscow also feeding Tehran’s military with satellite-derived target coordinates and over-the-horizon terminal guidance for its weapons. And with Iran asserting its rights over Hormuz, every ship permitted safe passage through the Strait has to pay a $2 million fee — a small time revenue stream compared to Iran’s shipping its own oil unhindered from Kharg island to the world!

Most astonishing, however, is the grit and the spirit shown by the Irani people, not all of them supporters of Khamanei’s theocratic state. But they have firmed up, patriotically backing it in fighting off the Americans and Israelis. They are suffering enormous privation — food and electricity shortages, and are under terrific social strain but not buckling. There’s no people’s movement to replace the rule by shia clerics that Washington had fervently hoped would materialise once the first US bombs hit home. And, as a bonus, the Global South seems to be slowly but definitely coming around to supporting a besieged Iran.

The biggest loser of this war is India. Not because it got involved in any way, but because it did not, satisfying itself with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his foreign minister S Jaishankar spewing banalities. And then screwing up in the one diplomatic foray it embarked on at the UN. Instead of abstaining on both the Russian Resolution in the Security Council that sought an immediate unconditional cessation of hostilities by all sides — a reasonable objective to push, and on the Bahraini Resolution blaming Tehran for reacting to the Gulf states-aided US-Israeli attacks on Iran by striking at them, Delhi chose to co-sponsor the latter Resolution, putting India squarely in the Arab-Western camp. As a consequence, India’s problems may have just begun.

Sure, Modi wants to preserve his relationship with UAE and Saudi Arabia — the foundation for his Gulf policy — arguably the only successful prong of Indian foreign policy in the last decade. Indian labourers in the Gulf send back remittances amounting to almost $50 billion in the first quarter of 2026 — some 40% of the inward remittances totaling $138 billion (with UAE accounting for some 20% of it and Saudi Arabia 7%). It is a nice little hard currency cushion the Modi regime has over the years wasted on useless armament purchases, featuring such things as the dated Rafale fighter aircraft for the IAF and the navy! It also wants to protect the relationship with Israel — the source of advanced military technology. All this is understandable.

But there’s a lot of space between protecting Indian interests in the Gulf and Israel, and protecting the national interest vis a vis the US. Or, have Modi and Jaishankar missed out on the basic thrust of the American policy clearly and publicly articulated in Delhi recently by visiting senior Trump Administration officials?

We had Christopher Landau, US Deputy Secretary of State, bury the Modi regime’s flawed assumption that America would do for India what it had previously done for Dengist China — assist it to rise to great economic and military power. At the Raisina Dialogue 2026 — MEA’s annual poster event, Landau said no, that won’t happen because Washington had learned its lesson, and would not be a party to its own further diminution by setting up yet another economic competitor and rival. It left the Modi dispensation reeling — the main prop of its US policy kicked from underneath it by the Americans!

Next, Landau’s colleague at the Pentagon, US Under “Secretary of War” Eldridge Colby, son of a storied former US Central Intelligence Agency chief, William Colby, fetched up and formally aired, what I call, America’s compartmentalised strategy for India at the Delhi branch of an American thinktank. Washington will strive, he said in effect, to keep India down, preferably under its thumb, economically and in the technology sphere, prop up Pakistan as its main agent in the region, but will expect Delhi to help the US counterpoise China in the Indo-Pacific! Colby and Washington calculate that the Indian government is sufficiently spooked by the China threat to want to rely on the US strategically and to do so on American terms. And sure India should arm itself with American weapons, and reproduce any US military goods it wants but under license, thus lighting fire to the atmnirbharta pyre.

So far India has played America’s poodle without demur. It has adjusted its energy policy as per US directives, turning off and on the Russian oil spigot. Currently, this tap is open because as US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the Press, America has “permitted” India to resume buying oil from Russia to stabilise the supply end of the International energy market. Private players, like Reliance, are careful not to tread on US toes, and simply follow the Modi regime’s lead. This is now a business incentive for Reliance because it has committed to buying $300 billion worth of oil from a new refinery being constructed in Texas, in other words it is subsidising that refinery’s construction — a deal Trump has hailed as a new era of Indo-US cooperative relationship.

But, sorry, all this Indian money and Delhi’s willingness to accommodate American interests will only buy India license-production deals for stuff like the GE 414 jet engine, not its source code! Nor will it buy Delhi consideration in the Trump tariffs scheme — India will continue paying 15%-18% tariffs on its exports to the US, lower than the 50% rate imposed earlier only because the US Supreme Court ruled such tariffs illegal. In short, India will get absolutely no US concession on anything.

Meanwhile, “Field Marshal” Asim Munir and Pakistan are making merry on the American penny. Islamabad parlayed a diplomatic arrangement by which, with the closure in 1979, of Iran’s embassy in Washington, Pakistan was looking after that country’s interests in the US, into a mediator role in the ongoing War in the Gulf. It is playing the role of a communications channel it last played when Henry Kissinger was courting China in the early 1970s and often used official Pakistan visits to detour secretly to Beijing to confer with Maozedong and Zhouenlai to facilitate US President Richard Nixon’s great rapprochement and “opening to China”. And Pentagon has resumed arms assistance to Islamabad. And on the other side, Tehran has given blanket permission for all Pakistani oil bearing ships to negotiate the Hormuz narrows, even as Indian vessels are treated on a case-by-case basis, which reflects Tehran’s displeasure.

All this time, with the Gulf War spinning out of their comprehension, Modi-Jaishankar find the bilateral relations with Tehran in trouble. Modi’s basic geopolitical construct of North-South connectivity to link Indian trade to Central Asia via Chabahar in Iran and Afghanistan to rival Beijing ‘s China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, is in the doldrums. Over $500 million has been invested but its success is hostage to Washington’s intemperate Iran policy, subject to mostly its downs. In any case, it is going nowhere! The Gulf War has put IMEC (India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor) as well in deep freeze.

India’s “between and betwixt” posture in the new Gulf war, and its tendency to bow down to the US while Modi and Jaishnakar mouth inanities about the Gulf War and fixate on Pakistan, is not going down well in the Global South where, even though India is the current chair of BRICS, it is the Brazilian President, Inacio Lula, who is making waves, standing up for Third World interests, and opposing America’s war against Iran without UN authorization or even formal declaration of war. The latter epitomised by the US nuclear attack submarine torpedoing the Iranian navy frigate, Dena, returning home after the Indian navy had hosted an Iranian flotilla of three warships at its International Fleet Review in Visakhapatnam and in the Milan naval exercise. Sure, India afforded two of the Iranian ships and their crews “safe harbour”. But India had moral responsibility to see the Iranian frigates safely home, but there was not a squeak of diplomatic protest by Delhi demanding an explanation from Washington for its heinous act.

Trump and America are running away from war, and from the Gulf, not to return in any substantial way to the region for a very long time. Had the Modi regime kept its wits about it, understood the undercurrents, and kept atop the developments in the Persian Gulf, India would have had a strategic role in shaping and influencing that region post-US. In the event, neither America nor Iran cares for India and its regional interests, and UAE and the Saudis know the Indian remittance economy survives at their sufferance and they can control Delhi. India is really up a creek, and the Modi government seems not even to be aware of the deep waters it is treading.

At the core the issue is of India being strung out between strategic subservience to the US — that has led to its Gulf policy ending in a cul de sac, and economic dependence on China, with both Washington and Beijing now hanging Modi-Jaishankar and India out to dry.

Posted in Afghanistan, arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, Bhutan, Brazil, Central Asia, China, China military, civil-military relations, Culture, Decision-making, Defence Industry, Defence procurement, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, indian policy -- Israel, indian policy -- Israel, Iran and West Asia, Indo-Pacific, Intelligence, Iran and West Asia, Islamic countries, Israel, MEA/foreign policy, Military Acquisitions, Military/military advice, Missiles, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Relations with Russia, Russia, russian assistance, russian military, satellites, society, South Asia, space & cyber, Special Forces, Sri Lanka, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Taiwan, Technology transfer, technology, self-reliance, Terrorism, Trade with China, UN, United States, US., war & technology, Weapons, West Asia, Western militaries | Tagged iran, Israel, middle-east, news, politics | 101 Comments

Invest in a Foreign “pie in the sky” aircraft, drain Money and ATMNIRBHARTA

Posted on March 23, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[GCAP Vs FCAS]

Every military procurement deal is a boondoggle. Apparently the Ministry of Defence thinks the Indian government has money to burn, and that the Indian taxpayer will uncomplainingly fund the armed services’ procurement excesses. There has been an unending series of exorbitantly priced defence buys in the last few years which make little sense, taken singly or together, do not follow the tech trends, and are completely oblivious of where warfare is headed — it is towards vast numbers of small, cheap and mobile drones and autonomous weapons as the military successes by Ukraine against Russia and Iran’s against the combined might of the US and Israel have shown.

Anytime there’s an announcement of a new fighter plane deal or of an investment in one, I despair. It is invariably yet another decision in a time-tested pattern of the Indian Air Force buying into the wrongest thing, choosing the most expensive fighting platform option available, at the wrong time and just when manned aerial warfare is becoming extinct, and when the atmnirbharta/self-reliance programme needs desperately to be rescued from going down the drain.

So here we are — the great Rajnath Singh, who doesn’t tire of yakking about atmnirbharta, and the Defence Ministry he “leads”, once again indulging the foresight-less IAF’s fetish for flying blind in clear light. On Vayu Bhavan’s plea, the Defence Ministry endorsed the service’s outlandish demand for a still more “exquisite” aerial weapons platform that the country can acquire by joining one of the two European consortia developing a 6th generation fighter aircraft! There’s the GCAP (Global Combat Air Programme) with the UK-Italy-Japan and the Dassault-led FCAS (Future Combat Air System) involving France, Germany and Spain. A more spendthrift and straight forwardly foolish and foolhardy decision is hard to conceive, even as the idiot electronic and print media and commentariat in the country do their customary wahs, wahs, and genuflect before the wisdom shown by all concerned!

When one thought the Indian Air Force couldn’t go any lower than with the Rafale deal, which pretty much killed off the Tejas project, it did. It plunged lower by seeking participation in GCAP/FCAS that will write finis to the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft programme (AMCA). With the kind of latitude allowed the IAF by a mindless defence ministry and government to buy what it wants from wherever it wants, no surprise the Indian Navy too wanted in on the goodies, the fun buys! So it decided on the Rafale Marine carrier aircraft — this being its contribution to the Indian military’s dive into the depths of despond, at a time when the 2-engined Tejas designed for carrier operations had made it through all the test trials, and was on a fast-paced induction schedule into fleet service. Like the Air HQ, the NHQ too, did not do the right, nationalist, and patriotic thing. The cost of this folly? Rs 63,000 crore ($7.5 billion) for 26 Rafale Marine (Rafale-M) carrier fighter jets at $289 million for each plane WITHOUT weapons!

There’s no price tag mentioned for joining GCAP/FCAS yet, but it is not hard to extrapolate from the by now familiar figures for the most recent deal — Rs 3.25 lakh crore ($40 billion) for what was called the “Make in India” initiative for 114 Rafale aircraft, 18 off the shelf, 96 srewdrivered in the world’s leading aircraft screwdrivering facility — HAL. That amounts to Rs 2,850 crore EACH for an antiquated 4.5 generation fighter aircraft that went up in Sindoor and, for its troubles, was promptly shot down by the Chinese copy of the 4th-generation Israeli Lavi, the J-10 flown by the Pakistan Air Force! If this sad warplane, Rafale — exactly the same generation as Tejas but far less agile, costs so unimaginably much, how much more will joining GCAP or FCAS cost?

An initial total programme estimate for GCAP was $96 billion, which figure has escalated to something over $120 billion. Of this sum, Italy’s most recent estimated contribution by workshare and investment is $21.8 billion, leaving Japan and the UK to pick up $50 billion each. The Italians and the Brits are keen to water down their contribution by getting India in — when there’s an unsaleable product, the wisdom in the international arms bazar is to go to the Indian military — every foreign defence industry’s saviour! But GCAP is on an accelerated drive because Japan, fearing the Chinese Air Force, which is unveiling new high-tech combat aircraft every other year, reportedly wants it on the flightline soonest as replacement for its Mitsubishi F-2. In the event, it is too late to rework the whole workshare and proportionate investments aspects. But GCAP states would be very happy, of course, for the IAF to buy their plane, but it will get it last after the charter members have met their requirements. But because entry into the project is unlikely, the GCAP option may be off but, theoretically, split 4 ways the Indian contribution to it, at first glance, would be around $30 billion.

Ah, we come now to the IAF and Indian Navy’s favourite supplier — France! The FCAS cost estimate is $117 billion. But it is on its last legs because France and Germany differ on the basics — France thinks it already has the Rafale platform design that can be fruitfully embellished with new tech and built on as the advanced FCAS. But Dassault is unwilling to share the source code for the baseline Rafale system with Germany, arguing that Germans have zero aircraft designing and development capability, and Berlin can’t do much better than shut up, ride pillion, and periodically fork up the Euros! Germany feels insulted as does Spain, which has produced the medium range transport plane C-295 that Tata are assembling in the country, but little else. Enter the winner of the INTERNATIONAL SUCKER title – (We have to win at something) India!

Typically when in doubt, France, and every other arms supplying country, rounds in on India — everyone’s best and most valued customer, that can be taken for a ride anytime! And rounding in on the armed service dearest to Paris’ heart after its own Armée de l’air re-labelled since 2020 as Armee de l’air et de l’espace — the Indian Air Force! Dassault is hoping it can rope India into financing this whole wretched enterprise even as Germany and Spain wisely decamp. To recap, the FCAS initial cost of $117 billion is expected to escalate in lifetime cost terms to somewhere between 300 billion Euros (or Rs 3,25,13,10,00,00,000) and ONE Trillion Euros (Rs 10,83,77,00,00,00,000) !!!!!!!!!!! Halve whatever the price tag, and that, conservatively speaking, will be India’s contribution! Think of this mindboggling sum and blanche! Who says India is a poor country? Look beyond the Potemkinised New Delhi, Narendra Modiji!

[Su-57]

If the IAF is so eager for quickly stepping-up into the 5th-gen aircraft milieu, the Russian offer of its Sukhoi-57 seems reasonable, especially as it comes with complete transfer of source code, which will help finesse the Indian AMCA design and performance as well, and to integrate Indian-designed missiles into it, etc. Though let’s be clear: It is not a genuine stealth aircraft as it lacks the S-shaped engine ducts, say. But makes up for it by having recessed engine placement and an antiradar mesh on the fan-front. It can supercruise — go supersonic without afterburner, has endurance at 3,500km range (extendable to 4,500kms with external fuel tanks) and a 2-seat configuration (the IAF desires) for longrange strategic missions — useful considering the Service’s antipathy to a genuine strategic bomber — the Tu-160 White Swan with 13,500km range for non-stop 25-hour flying. Plus, importantly, the Su-57 (NATO codenamed “Felon”) has concealed in-built bomb-bays, so unlike the hideously expensive Rafale with weapons under-slung and on external wingpoints that would light up enemy radar like a Christmas tree at distance, it is relatively invisible. The 57’s radar cross section increases only for the moments the bays open for the weapon drop/release. And the entire deal will be far more affordable. And the IAF would have two mainline 5th gen+ aircraft — AMCA and Su-57 in its fleet. Politically, it will help correct the country’s foreign policy that has tilted so far US/West-wards there is near certainty of the country stepping voluntarily into America’s vassalage. See how India’s energy politics is hostage to Trump’s domestic political imperatives, highlighted by recent developments on the US-Iran war front.

It will make the Rafale completely redundant, and the deal for it can and should be cancelled. And if Rajnath Singh and the Defence Ministry have any military sense, which they don’t, the Rafale-Marine would be ditched as well, and trust reposed in the indigenous naval Tejas as the Indian Navy’s flag carrier fighter/strike aircraft.

Compared to the number of conflicts it has engaged in, post-1971, the IAF has had little to show by way of success. Its record of aerial kills is negative — it has lost more aircraft than it has downed enemy planes, as the first day (May 7) of last year’s Op Sindoor — 5 aircraft lost, or the 1st day of the Kargil conflict (two aircraft lost) in 1999, proved. (AP Singh can talk all the nonsense he wants about “12-15” Pakistan Air Force aircraft, including F-16s, the IAF supposedly shot out of the skies during Sindoor and, while at it, Air Chief Marshal, why not claim the destruction of the entire PAF fleet?! But he knows the score.)

But damned if the IAF does not have a very impressive record of killing home-designed and developed aircraft — the HF-24 Marut, HF-71/72/73, Tejas 1A, 2, and now the Chief of the Air Staff, ACM Aman Preet Singh, can proudly and symbolically mount the head of the AMCA in the officer’s mess on Zakir Hussain Marg, and gloat over another kill! Because, with over half a trillion dollars needing to be committed to FCAS prospectively where will the private sector consortium of L&T, Tata, & Bharat Forge — the finest in the country, tasked with designing, developing and producing the AMCA, get the money from? And with the attention diverted to the FCAS will the IAF ever actually buy any AMCAs when they are produced?

Fortunately, this horrendous GCAP/FCAS investment plan is so far only a paper demand by the Defence Ministry. Prime Minister Narendra Modi will have to ultimately decide if pouring hard-earned Indian wealth after poor European investments is a good idea. Whosoever is advising him on these issues will, hopefully, suffer from a fit of common sense, and prevail on Modi to reject this IAF-Defence Ministry request outright, and get the Prime Minister to tell the IAF to live within the country’s means — a piece of counsel he may like to extend to the other chiefs of staff he meets periodically as well, and to the senior commanders of the three armed services he confers with annually.

Posted in arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, China, China military, civil-military relations, corruption, Culture, Decision-making, Defence Industry, Defence procurement, domestic politics, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian democracy, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Politics, Indo-Pacific, Israel, Japan, MEA/foreign policy, Military Acquisitions, Military/military advice, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Russia, russian assistance, russian military, society, South Asia, Technology transfer, technology, self-reliance, United States, US., war & technology, Weapons, Western militaries | Tagged history, india, news, Pakistan, politics | 36 Comments

America preparing to cut and run from Iran

Posted on March 10, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[Trump: Sleeping through an “excursion” with bodybags]

Just as the Kremlin is unwilling still to own up to the conflict in Ukraine as a war, and is sticking with Putin’s initial phrase for it — “special military operation”, so coined to denote a small, swift, military action, Donald Trump is struggling to find the right label for the US’ joint misadventure with Israel in Iran. While the US “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth has called it “war”, the US President, ten days into an armed affair that is far from over, has been reluctant to do so because calling any military hostilities war immediately enlarges the canvas and the nature of operations and, worse, raises expectations his government cannot meet. Hence, Trump has settled on calling it an “excursion”, having realised soon enough that his talk of regime change was so much hoo-ha that, short of landing massive American armies in Iran, is impossible to obtain.

And even then there’s no guarantee that the landed US forces will survive the intense firefights and close quarter guerilla fighting in attritional mode — something the Americans are loath to engage in — in the cities and in the Iranian countryside that over 31 Pasdaran (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) sub-regional headquarters with prepositioned stores have been preparing for. The Pasdaran are some 200,000 strong with a potential for unlimited manpower callup. Then there’s the Shia-ite theology of self-sacrifice and martyrdom to contend with. The Karbala syndrome — the exaltation of Hussain Ali’s death at the hands of the Umayad Caliph, Yazid, in 680 AD at the Battle of Karbala (in Iraq), which fuels the Pasdaran effort, is not to be taken lightly.

If the US military underestimated the “gooks” they were fighting in Vietnam, it may discover something equally chastening coming its way in Iran should Trump foolishly opt for a land war in a country twice as large as Iraq, which the US failed to keep in check after its ill-advised invasion in 2003. Given that Iran’s terrain is almost designed for mountain guerilla warfare of a kind that America lost in neighbouring Afghanistan not too long ago, Trump’s trumpeting his objective as successively “unconditional surrender”, “regime change” and having his choice selected as the next leader in Tehran was manifestly the wrong tack for him to take. “If Mr. Trump seeks escalation,” said Iran’s Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Aragchi, tartly, “it is precisely what our Powerful Armed forces have long prepared for, and what he will get.” Trump has not repeated his patent nonsense lately, suggesting he may have seen the futility of setting such goals.

In any case, Trump’s excursion is getting pricey! According to US Congressional sources Op Epic Fury is costing America $890 million per day to prosecute, and the bill to-date for just the expended guided munitions and armaments exceeds $560 billion! This void will be a bonanza for the US defence industry to fill. But it is the bodybags coming home to grieving American families that is upsetting Trump’s plans. In wars, the US sports a dismal record — its only success being the 1990-91 Op Desert Shield (or, the 1st Gulf War). Honestly, the American society has no stamina for war — its muscularity being limited to beefy Hollywood stars wreaking havoc in action movies! So far the “butcher’s bill” of 7 dead and 140 injured American soldiers has been enough to unsettle US politics, with the media and the people starting to clamour for a pullout. Sympathetic media pundits are preparing the ground, arguing that because Iran has been militarily hurt, in many respects grievously, Trump can call it a victory and get the hell out. This last is round the corner because the media campaign is failing with MAGA’s mega influencers, like Joe Rogan, turning on Trump. What was supposed to be a quick in and out — a few days of decisive military strikes to bring Iran to its knees, is gradually taking a familiar course — an elongated military conflict that is impacting the global economy. With the Hormuz Strait now being mined by the Iranians, the US knows it is in for the long haul in a hard knuckle fight the American people have no will to sustain.

The real test, however, now looms for both the warring sides. Does Tehran and the new Mojtaba Khamanei dispensation think its military and the Pasdaran have squirrelled away sufficient quantities of guided munitions to keep the oil traffic through the narrow Hormuz Strait (23 miles at its narrowest) stalled? And then, for how long? Already the regional and international economies are tanking, with the oil, gas, and refining industries slowly grinding to a halt. If the Abadan oil refining complex and the oil storage and loading port at Kharg Island (able to handle 7 million barrels per day) have so far been spared Western strikes, Tehran too has desisted from taking out major refineries and tank farms in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf. No one wants a world without West Asian energy. In fact, Trump warned Israel against hitting Iranian oil facilities again after it struck such an installation near Tehran. Keeping the Hormuz gateway closed is precisely Iran’s leverage, and Iran seems confident that it can keep it shut long enough to advantage it. The US offer of naval escorts for oil tankers through this Strait, isn’t the answer.

In this context, the Modi government’s considering the option of Indian navy ships escorting some 36 Indian-flagged tankers with India-bound oil stuck on either side of Hormuz is a perfectly silly and dangerous idea, particularly in light of Tehran’s pointed threats of attacking any crude-carrying ship. In fact, an Indian vessel would be a tempting target for Iranian missiles for many reasons. Providing Iranian naval ships and their crews safe haven in Indian ports will only get you so far with a Tehran that is caught up in a do or die struggle. A shot to disable an Indian ship would create a bilateral crisis, yes. But Tehran may deem this an acceptable price for signalling to bigger players its resolve to stop the oil traffic whatever it takes. Except, hitting an Indian vessel will be minus the danger of a US carrier group countering with a lethal response in case a western tanker is sunk. Therefore, which ever part of GOI thought up this damn fool idea — very likely MEA seeking to please Trump, the foreign policy reflex of the Indian government should be to stop being an “idiocracy” (a word coined by Tom Cooper, the Austrian military analyst of repute)! Does Prime Minister Narendra Modi want the Indian Navy to be the “canary in the coal mine” for the US? Really?!

Instead of its ships risking passage through Hormuz, Delhi should quadruple oil imports from the Sakhalin oil field that ONGC has equity in — a far simpler and obvious solution. It should herald a fullscale restoration of oil trade with Russia on a sustained and permanent basis, not subject to cut offs of energy ties everytime some Trump or his poodle barks in Washington. Had Modi not allowed Trump to walk all over him and told the US President off in no uncertain terms that good relations with America will not be at the expense of ties with Russia, an old and reliable friend, and that India buys Russian oil because it will always suit India’s purposes to do so, and that the US centrally requires India to be on its side in its rivalry with China, that trade with India and access to its vast market benefits America more, as does the flow of cheap skilled labour, it’d have silenced Trump. And a grateful and appreciative Putin would have sold oil pennies on the barrel. Now the country will have to pay through its nose for the Sakhalin/Siberian energy. But better oil from somewhere than no oil from anywhere. And it can make this as in the past a remunerative business by selling refined petroleum products to Western European countries who’d be less willing in the future to impose sanctions just because Trump wants it so.

In this respect, it may be noted that when the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, assuming a lofty attitude, told the American Press that America had “permitted” India to buy oil from Russia, there was NO immediate challenge from the MEA to say that the country’d damn well buy oil from where ever and whenever as dictated by national interest, and that Delhi did not need US permission or approval. That reaction came two days after it had become a hot political issue here.

How little regard Trump and his Administration have for Modi and India was clear when Washington failed to inform Delhi about the plan for one of its nuclear attack submarines to torpedo an Iranian missile destroyer, IRIS Dena, barely outside Sri Lankan waters, when it was returning to home base after participating in the Indian Navy’s International Fleet Review off Vishakhapatnam (Feb 15-25, 2026) and the MILAN 2026 maritime exercise with friendly navies hosted by the Indian navy. The Modi regime couldn’t have averted this incident on March 4, but to spare it the blushes, could have reasoned with the US Indo-Pacific Command, Honolulu, to postpone the action to when the vessel entered Iran’s near seas so as to link it up with Op Epic Fury — a not illogical ask. Instead, Dena sank with the Indian government making much of sheltering the other two ships in the Iranian flotilla, Lavan and Bushehr, with external affairs minister S Jaishankar, at the Raisina Dialogue, MEA’s annual poster event, apparently justifying the kill by pointing to the US and other foreign naval presence in Diego Garcia and elsewhere in the Indian Ocean region. Hegseth described the surprise attack as “quiet death”! 87 bodies of dead Iranian submariners were fished out and 32 sailors rescued. (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/iris-dena-iran-israel-war-indian-ocean-caught-on-wrong-side-of-events-s-jaishankar-on-iranian-ship-sunk-by-us-11181112)

Israel may have good reasons to want Iran defanged militarily and nuclear-wise, and to get that chump, Trump, to activate the American strike wherewithal against Iran, thus distributing the work load and the risk. No doubt Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid it on thick about how easy it’d be for the Hero of Venezuela to depose the regime of the Ayatollahs, have some working stiff manage things for the West in Tehran, and position Trump, after Venezuelan oil (with Saudi and Gulf oil already in the American bag), to now also control the far superior grade oil and gas pumped out of Iran, and thereby hoist himself up as the true energy King of the World, or some such…! True to type Trump swallowed it whole and now finds himself up a creek.

Russia and China meanwhile couldn’t ask for a better turn of events. In stark terms, Russian oil is at a premium again and will stay that way for a good while yet, and the fact that two US aircraft carrier groups and huge air forces have been mustered to deal with Iran along with the redirection of logistics to the West Asian theatre, means a more desperate Kyiv being forced to husband its meagre military resources, and fewer American weapons to fight the Russians with. China, likewise, benefits from the US military forces in the Indo-Pacific being preoccupied with Iran — a mission that is fast depleting the American stock of guided munitions and long range missiles, and weakening the US’ military readiness profile in the Far East.

The seemingly scatter-brained Trump faces a no-win situation. Despite the Israeli and US onslaught, Iran has reportedly managed to preserve the bulk of its deadliest arsenal, made up entirely of indigenously designed and produced long range weapons systems — the Bavar 373 surface-to-air missile, and the 300km range Mehran air defence system operated by the Pasdaran. It means there will be more losses of American fighting assets, more casualties, and no easy wins for Trump to trumpet. Moreover, the longer the conflict the bigger the number of bodybags delivered back to the US, multiplying the political difficulties for Trump at home. He was, after all, elected in 2024, in part because he had promised “no more wars”.

In the event, with the November Congressional elections looming, the continuing Iran imbroglio will likely lose his Republican party majorities in the lower house and possibly even in the Senate. This is a certainty. As of January 2027 then, he will become a lame duck president and his usual theatrics will be of little avail. It is an end-state he wishes to avoid. So, if he isn’t already looking for a face-saving excuse to decamp from West Asia, he soon will. America’s reputation and credibility as partner and ally, or what little is left of them, being as usual in tatters after each such episode.

If no credible excuse comes his way and Hormuz remains bottled up and no oil flows, look for Trump to get out any way. He will invent some fiction for the US military to flee West Asia. It is something the American armed forces have had a lot of practice doing all over the globe in the last 70-odd years (Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan) and is good at — cutting and running from the battlefield!

TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) Trump, Zindabad!

Posted in Afghanistan, arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, China, China military, civil-military relations, Culture, Decision-making, Defence Industry, Defence procurement, domestic politics, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, guerilla warfare, India's China Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Navy, Indo-Pacific, Intelligence, Iran and West Asia, Islamic countries, Israel, Latin America, MEA/foreign policy, Military Acquisitions, Military/military advice, Missiles, Russia, russian military, sanctions, society, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Terrorism, United States, US., war & technology, Weapons, West Asia | Tagged iran, Israel, middle-east, news, politics | 40 Comments

Catalytic War? Not quite!

Posted on March 1, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[Strike on the Khamanei compound in Tehran]

It has the makings of a catalytic war. The US and Israel jointly struck Iranian targets, mostly nuclear-related installations and other strategic assets in Tabriz, Isfahan, Shiraz, the port city of Chabahar, Ayatollah Khamanei’s residential compound in Tehran and, to make a point, the centre of Shia Islam, Qom.

As warned, the Pasdaran — Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, retaliated with missile firings on Tel Aviv, and the air bases in Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain housing US Navy’s 5th Fleet, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the international airport in Dubai, UAE, 2nd home to Bollywood stars and rich Indians, who must now be questioning their wisdom of investing in million dirham homes and apartments there.

Warnings of such an extension and spread of the war is what Tehran had hoped would deter the US government from going in with Israel in the initial air strikes. It didn’t.

If any of the emirates and kingdoms of the Gulf had any kind of consequential militaries, they would have felt compelled to respond to the Iranian strikes in kind. But because they are mostly American camp followers, they are on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot alienate Tehran and the shia minorities in their own societies (especially in Bahrain) or motivate the shia groups fighting Israel in West Asia — Hezbollah and Hamas in the main supported by Iran, by mounting even symbolic actions against the Tehran regime. And yet they cannot be drawn into a larger conflagration because the status of the UAE emirates and sheikhdoms in particular who, other than because of their oil economies, have fashioned themselves into global finance centres. Imagine how quickly Dubai would revert to a desert outpost if the large Financial Institutions decamp, leaving the various Sheikhs’ and emirs’ plans for their small estates evolving into technology, education, and cultural nodes, in the dust.

This is why there will be no catalytic war to engulf the Gulf.

The notion of ‘catalytic war’ was originally conceived in the 1950s by Henry Rowen, then a professor in business management at Stanford University, and later the 2nd head of RAND and Assistant Secretary of Defence in the George Bush Administration. He theorised that the two super powers — the US and USSR would be drawn into a nuclear war should their regional allies start conflicts that would suck the super powers into them.

Some 70 years later, we have a situation of a possible reverse catalytic war — the US’s lead role against a regional power that reacts by striking at America’s allies in the proximal areas inducing the latter to respond, triggering a full blown military imbroglio. But this won’t happen because the exchange ratio for the Gulf states for thus stretching the conflict could be catastrophic as mentioned above. So, starting with Jordan — the worst hit, none of the Iran-targeted states will unleash their puny forces against Tehran.

Catalytic war in the reverse mode won’t happen also because most of the leading West European countries have come out against the US-Israeli conflict initiation, with France and Spain, not Iran, raising the issue yesterday in the UN Security Council. So, Trump is now aware that his anti-NATO posture is coming home to roost, that European NATO will no longer support US-started conflicts anywhere in the world (unlike in the Cold War when UK and Australia joined the US in the war in Korea, and many NATO states despatched their troops to fight alongside American soldiers in Vietnam and much later in Afghanistan). Now, Washington has only Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel to bank on. And where Iran is concerned, it is the Israeli tail that is wagging the American dog — with Trump falling in line with Tel Aviv’s longstanding demand for a regime change in Tehran.

While Trump and Israel have claimed that the mullahcracy in Iran has had its leadership decapitated — that Ayatollah Ali Khamanei has been killed, it is unlikely this alone will mean much if the balance of forces within Iran continues to be with the shia clerics.

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, there are four main players — the shia clergy and their main pillar of support — the all powerful Pasdaran with its intelligence tentacles reaching out into the nooks and crannies of the state and society, weeding out the protesters and unreliables wherever they may be found.

Secondly, there is the religiously conservative population in the vast countryide — the real strength of the clerical government in the country. Thirdly, there are the city folks in major urban centres — the people who supposedly yearn for the good times during the reign of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who projected himself as the latest in the line of Persian emperors going back to Cyrus the Great circa 5th Century BC. Even though this Pahlavi’s father, Reza Shah, was commander of a Persian Cossack Brigade, who was picked by Western powers at the end of Worl War I to rule Persia and protect their oil investments and interests. But a parallel democratising political development occurred with the Iranian majlis (parliament) in 1952 electing Mohammad Mosaddeg, a reformist, as head of government only to have the US Central Intelligence Agency stage a coup a year later, and return Iran to the West-friendly absolute rule of Reza Shah’s son, Mohammad Reza, which was ended by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. This Mohammad Reza’s son, the 1960 born Reza Pahlavi as the lineal descendent is Trump’s man to fill, once again, the vacant Iranian “throne”.

The fourth and decisive player are the baazaris — the traders, with enormous financial clout, whose siding with Khomeini ended the Pahlavi “dynasty”. This then is the setup, and the baazaris again will determine the side the balance of power will tilt in Iranian politics. The baazari element is too culturally tuned against the West to sustain the return of the American educated Reza Pahlavi as an obvious American stooge.

This analysis raises three side issues — two important, the third not so. First, when and how will the Iranian military with the Pasdaran in the van use the more “advanced weapons” in their arsenal that they have threatened to fire after they have expended the stock of older missiles and such? Assuming that at least one set of these new weapons are supersonic anti-ship missiles, will they be used to sink the most high value targets in the seas offsore — the US aircraft carriers led by the latest USS Gerald Ford equipped with EMALS (ElectroMagnetic Launch System) for rapid launch and recovery of strike aircraft, now anchoring off the Israeli coast, and reachable by longrange supersonic anti-ship missiles allegedly transferred to Iran by Russia/China? Should an American carrier be sunk, it will sink Trump’s presidency as well as surely as tomorrow’s sunrise. Trump will not react reflexively by doing anything foolish, like using tactical nuclear weapons, say. Why? Because then Moscow and Beijing will come to Tehran’s aid, and then there are no bets as to what might happen next. World War is too pregnant a phrase to bandy about loosely. But such a prospect does hove into view.

But what if Trump responds with a huge conventional military venture, all combat arms and assets in? No amount of aerial bombing will bring Iran to its knees. What will is a land war, and that is not something the US army, which has time and again shown it cannot win close quarter fights, and will abhor getting into. Further, if Gerald Ford is sunk with all its defences turned on, what prevents an enthused Pasdaran/Iranian navy-military from bringing down the other carrier and all the carrier escorts in nearby waters, and taking out US 5th Fleet ships berthed in Bahrain? If the Iranians don’t fire these missiles then questions will arise about the Pasdaran chickening out. Can Pasdaran survive that supposed calumny?

It leads to the second issue– actually that old question asked in Sherlock Holmes’ mystery of the missing race horse — Silver Blaze! Why did the dog not bark?! Here the dog is Russia-China, both big powers with interest in retaining the Ayatollah dispensation in Tehran. Why has there been not a squeak out of them even though Trump daily rants against them? After all, the mere fact of Soviet nuclear attack submarines trailing the Enterprise carrier group in the Bay of Bengal in 1971 allowed the Indian army to complete its business in East Pakistan. A similar presence could sow no end of doubts in the Trump White House and in the mind of the US military and save Tehran’s goose.

The third issue is the recent trip by Narendra Modi to Israel. From the first sense, one does get the feel that the returns for Delhi from the much heralded visit, as some commentators have concluded, are paltry. But be that as it may, the interesting thing is that Netanyahu must have alerted Modi to the ingoing Israeli strikes on Iran. So where was the need for the Indian government to put in its two pice worth of nonsensical advice to the US, Israel and Iran to seek peace?! The proverbial counsel given a blonde bimbo is relevant here: Don’t open your mouth and prove it!

Posted in arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, Australia, China, China military, civil-military relations, Culture, Decision-making, Defence procurement, domestic politics, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, Indo-Pacific, Intelligence, Internal Security, Iran and West Asia, Islamic countries, Israel, MEA/foreign policy, Military Acquisitions, Russia, russian assistance, russian military, United States, US., Vietnam, war & technology, Weapons, West Asia, Western militaries | Tagged history, iran, Israel, middle-east, politics | 58 Comments

Defence cooperation — Don’t do with Israel, Modiji, what you are doing with France

Posted on February 19, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[Prime Ministers Benjamin Netanyahu & Modi]

After the visit by President Emmanuel Macron, India and France have just sealed what is officially touted as a “Special Global Strategic Partnership”. This is diplomatese for the fleecing of India, exemplified by the nearly Rs 4 lakh crore deal for the 4.5 generation Rafale fighter aircraft with the first 20 bought off the shelf, and some 90-odd of the rest assembled here by who else, HAL.

This defence public sector unit is to subscribe to a production scheme that starts at the 30% “indigenous” level rising to 60% by the end of its 30-year run. Even an otherwise weakheaded defence minister Rajnath Singh senses something is very wrong with the cost-product calculus, and has asked that the indigenisation level be upped but only to 50%. Hopefully, he means starting out, because Dassault Avions would be only too happy to reduce the end-level by 10%!

It did not occur to our respected defence minister or even Prime Minister Narendra Modi to tell Macron — that the contract will have to include ALL SOURCE CODES FOR EVERYTHING ON THE AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING WEAPONS, OR NO DEAL! Whatever the understanding to-date to buy this aircraft, it can be junked at any time. At a minimum, full and certifiable transfer of source codes should be the condition for the deal going forward. India holds the whiphand here, not France. Why is Delhi acting as a supplicant? It is Paris that wants India’s money, not the other way around. So Modi should INSIST on this! Nobody in the Indian government apparently appreciates just how much of a lifeline this deal is. For France!

While Modi misses no platform to blow his atmnirbharta trumpet, the head of Dassault — maker of the Rafale, Eric Trappier, has been equally determined in ensuring that his Company parts with no technology of any consequence in the Rafale deal, including source codes. Indeed, he severly and publicly reprimanded the head of the German firm, Thyssen-Krupp Marine, for promising source codes to India for the HDW 214 diesel submarine to get the navy’s Project 75i. He obviously fears Thyssen-Krupp will set a precedent for the rest of the arms suppliers, who have treated India as an endless source of sustenance, to follow. It is Trappier that the British weekly, The Economist, blamed for cratering the European trilateral 6th generation Future Combat Air System project, because he did not want to share the Rafale technologies with Germany and Spain as the tech base for the FCAS. So he is being consistent in not helping India become an independent fighter aircraft producer. But that is France’s problem.

The way the transaction has progressed it is as if Modi and Rajnath are nothing, the Indian government is zero and will bend to whatever the mighty Trappier and Dassault deign to SELL to the IAF! Thank you IAF leadership for doing France’s/Dassault’s work for them by projecting the Rafale plane as something the service and Indian security cannot do without — when that is about as hollow a claim as can be conjured up by a set of unscrupulous salesmen to a bunch of yokels! But, hey, Trappier has won out. India will pay a princely sum for a fast aging fighter platform and that too MINUS source codes. But let’s speculate a bit about what may be possible.

The 60% indigenisation level would be upped, and the timeline for it contracted to 3-4 years should Messrs Modi & Rajanth Singh sternly press Paris. But having staked a position, France is unlikely to budge but, should push come to shove, will agree — it is desperate to have this deal and the accruing bank balance to fund its own future programmes — to no indigenisation beyond 80%. Why 80%? Because the 20% level remaining with Dassault/MBDA for the most advanced Rafale tech, that will come as “black box” technologies, is what will hand Paris the “short leash” — the means of controlling the Rafale fleet and hence the IAF, and hence Indian military options for the lifetime of this plane in Indian service!

Except that will still leave India without the Rafale source codes which, in Indian hands, would help to fit, for instance, Indian-designed bombs, rockets and missiles and even avionics without Dassault/MBDA intervening to extract massive fees for integrating them into the plane.

This “mother of all defence deals” in terms of the sums involved, will empty out the Indian taxpayer’s purses to make a wealthy France, wealthier! This when, in pursuance of Modi’s atmnirbharta policy, such extraordinarily large sums in hard currency could have been invested in, say, additional production lines in the far more labour-efficient, process-wise effective, and product quality-wise better private sector for the Indian designed Tejas light combat aircraft in all its versions — 1A, 2, as a natural lead in to the AMCA (advanced medium combat aircraft) programme already allotted to the consortium of Tata, L&T, Bharat Forge, et al. This, perhaps, makes too much logic and sense for the Indian government.

But why the above preamble for a post on Modi’s Feb 25-26 trip to Israel? Because the Rafale deal with France is a cautionary tale for the sort of defence cooperation the Prime Minister should not enter into with Tel Aviv.

The strategic-minded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already announced a 30-year timeline for his country to become fully independent of US support because he has judged correctly, as the Indian government seems incapable of doing, that relying on America even in the midterm could be perilous and it is a risk his country cannot and will not take. Keeping the Israeli economy afloat is the key.

India-Israel relations are in fine fettle and the sharing of intelligence and ways and means of fighting Islamic extremism and terrorism, and managing disputed borders, is by now fairly routine. But bilateral ties are ready for an upgrade. Logically, because Israel is the start-up nation of renown and creates and innovates technology as its staple, and because most such technologies are first deployed for use by the Israeli Defence Force in its security systems, it is necessary, Netanyahu has concluded, that his country find a reliable, ideologically resonant partner. An economically prospering and friendly India fits that bill. Indeed, the Israeli government is looking to explore the possibility of drawing India into more extensive defence cooperation, and Israeli defence and high-tech companies are seeking Indian investors and partners for joint programmes to sell in a global market.

These developments have germinated, I believe, from an idea I first conveyed to Uzi Landau — I have written about this in previous posts — in, if I recall correctly, 2002, when he was visiting Delhi as the Israeli Minister for Public Security. He had come over for a meeting with me at the Centre for Policy Research, along with Shabtai Shavit, who headed Mossad from 1989 to 1996. Among other things that we talked about, I suggested to them the obvious mesh of Israel tech muscle with Indian finance and large DPSU production infrastructure to manufacture traditional military hardware for consumption by both the Indian and Israeli militaries — from large items such as tanks, long range guns, to small arms and ammo and artillery shells. Economies of scale and lowered unit price would obtain. This could lead, I argued, to Indian financing of, and participation in, at all levels, with Israeli companies researching and developing cutting edge weapons systems and military software, and how such a partnership could free both states from the inconstant “friendship” of the US. They were intrigued by the 2-way defence/security bond I was proposing. I pitched the same concept to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon when he visited Delhi in September 2003.

The idea made its way through the Israeli government and got traction in the Indian government, fructifying in the 2006 deal between the DPSU Bharat Electronics Ltd and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) for joint design and development of the Barak 8 (or Barak LR) long range surface to air missiles (LRSAMs) to protect Indian aircraft carriers and warships. The first test firing of this ship air defence system was in 2010. By 2018, four Kolkatta-class destroyers had the Barak 8 protection. To date, India has invested between $1.4-$2 billion in this project. It led to extension of the project to meet the Indian army’s demand for area air defence, and yet another programme, this time to design and produce a medium range variant of this missile.

Indians may have wished for a fairer division of work. DRDO produced the dual pulse rocket motor for the 150 km range, mach 2 missile, and IAI the MF Star multi-function, surveillance, track, and guidance radar. Still, it is a successful enough partnership to whet the Israeli appetite for more such cooperative ventures. And that’s where matters stand.

If defence cooperation is not to stay stuck in the Barak 8 mode, it may be wise for Prime Minister Modi to take the lead in furthering this cooperation by broadbasing it with a proposal, as was originally envisaged, to have the production of Israeli conventional weapons platforms and small arms move at least partially from Israel to India, to benefit the Indian armed services as well as the IDF and for export, and to establish an India-Israel Defence Cooperation Council as the lead mechanism for the purpose, and to realise the larger agenda of meshing the two defence industries for the good of both the countries.

It will be a departure from the typical license production/screwdrivering projects the DPSUs undertake of second rate equipment, such as the Rafale. And it will involve the conjoining of the unique talents and strengths of the two countries. What may emerge is a very strong joint defence science, R&D, and industrial complex to power the ambitions of India and Israel, and as a player on the global scene. And it will cement a desirable embrace.

Posted in arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, civil-military relations, Culture, Decision-making, Defence Industry, Defence procurement, domestic politics, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, indian policy -- Israel, indian policy -- Israel, Iran and West Asia, Indo-Pacific, Intelligence, Internal Security, Islamic countries, MEA/foreign policy, Military Acquisitions, Military/military advice, Missiles, society, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, technology, self-reliance, United States, US., war & technology, Weapons, West Asia, Western militaries | Tagged history, india, news, Pakistan, politics | 60 Comments

Rajnath Singh gave the right directive; why was General Naravane so fearful of taking a decision?

Posted on February 9, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[2020 army chief General MM Naravane & Northern Army commander Lt Gen YK Joshi]

There’s at once much more, and much less, to the quotes from the memoirs — Four Stars of Destiny, of the former army chief, General MM Naravane, carried in a commentary by Sushant Singh, an ex-army officer turned perceptive commentator, published in a recent edition of the magazine, Caravan. Access to this otherwise paywalled piece is available at https://archive.is/20260202071854/https://caravanmagazine.in/security/navarane-memoir-ladakh-crisis. The quoted parts are, apparently, the most controversial portions of the book that has not so far been cleared by the Defence Ministry for public release. If the content of these quotes is the reason why the Modi regime is chary, then it is needlessly apprehensive. Because, in reality, it is more damning of Naravane than it is of Modi and his government.

But what’s the brouhaha about? It has to do with the nature of the government’s directive, specifically, the defence minister Rajnath Singh’s instructions, to Naravane to deal with a situation on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) created by some PLA tanks from its Moldo garrison rumbling uphill towards an Indian position at a higher level in the Kailash Range on 29 August 2020, and the Northern army commander YK Joshi pressing him to allow the firing of his medium guns in response. The drama in Sushant Singh’s narrative refers to Naravane “making frantic calls to the leaders of India’s political and military establishment, including Rajnath Singh, the defence minister; Ajit Doval, the national security advisor; General Bipin Rawat, the chief of defence staff; and S Jaishankar, the minister of external affairs”, asking each of them, in the army chief’s words “What are my orders?”

This is mighty strange, but why were Doval, CDS, and the Minister of External Affairs, Jaishankar, of all people, even on the list that an increasingly frazzled Naravane was contacting to get instructions from? Were these persons in a formally designated heirarchy whom the army chief was, protocol-bound, to call serially for his orders with an imminent clash brewing? And did these people constitute what Sushant Singh calls ” a government committee” put in-charge of developments on the LAC by Prime Minister Narendra Modi? “My position was critical,” writes Naravane finding himself between Joshi “who wanted to open fire with all possible means” and a government committee “which had yet to give me clear-cut executive orders.”

And, if the persons, ostensibly on that “committee”, were called for directions by Naravane in that emergency in 2020, are these same persons still to be called for pol-mil instructions that the current or a future chief of the army staff is/will be expected to get his guidance from should things heat up on the disputed border? To put it plainly, why should the army chief expect an “executive order” from any one other than the Defence Minister? And why should it be tactically detailed? Look up the political directives from US President Franklin Roosevelt to General Eisenhower at the beginning of the American involvement in World War II — when American forces reached North Africa in 1942, and before Normandy landings in 1944, and consider just how undetailed they were. Or Churchill’s guidance to his theatre commanders, from a British politician who was a known authority on military matters. Rajnath Singh, in comparison, is a provincial Hindi Belt politician, like many others in the cabinet, who couldn’t spot a military drone from a hobby drone if his life depended on it.

But the guidance that was issued, and who issued it is the nub of the story. Implicit in Naravane’s account is his dissatisfaction with the Defence Minister’s instructions. Rajnath Singh, albeit after consultations with the PM and others, as the memoir reports, advised Naravane “Jo uchit samjho, woh karo”— do what you think is appropriate. Why was that directive wrong or inadequate, and why are doubts being raised about the Defence Minister as the order issuing authority, and Prime Minister Modi charged with dereliction of duty, and of shirking his responsibility for a decision that Naravane exaggeratedly believed could have started a running war with China? Sushant Singh thinks it was the PM’s call that he didn’t make — a very questionable thesis.

In the event, Naravane decided correctly to have Indian tanks with the lead army unit get into hull down positions, lower their guns and get set to fire downhill at the advancing line of Chinese tanks — actions that stopped the PLA armour in their tracks, ending that particular incident.

This denouement raises several troubling questions. First of all, about what Sushant Singh calls an “existing protocol” — “clear orders not to open fire” till, in Naravane’s words “cleared from the very top.” Why is such a protocol there at all? That’s my peeve — what is so special about the LAC that it has to be treated with kid gloves, and even the smallest troop movements have to be cleared by the China Study Group — that apex group of Mandarin-speaking nay sayers headed by NSA, before its decisions go up the chain to the PM?

But, to return to Naravane’s narrative, isn’t Rajnath’s directive with the PM in the know not “from the very top” then? Why does he, Sushant Singh, and other like-minded people, have a problem with that? And, if as the ex-army chief says, it made for “purely a military decision”, again, what’s wrong with that? Shouldn’t all tactical decisions on the LAC, in any case, be taken at most by the Divisional commander, if not lower commanders? Why bring the corps and theatre commanders even and, more ridiculously, the COAS, into it? The real problem from Naravane’s point of view, it would appear, was that he was “handed a hot potato… [a] carte blanche [to do whatever he thought was best, with] the onus…now totally on” him, and he did not cherish it. It turns out, he did not want to make that decision, have that onus on him!

In that case, what does Naravane, and others who think like him, believe the army chieftaincy is about — endless rounds of meetings in South Block with chai and samosas/biscuits, inspections of army formations and facilities with the requisite pomp and bandobast, making speeches, taking off on the occasional MEA-arranged foreign trip, and similar fun things? Or, for taking hard decisions in crises?

But Naravane dramatises the whole thing — about his sitting “with the map of J & K and Ladakh on one wall, Eastern Command on another”, visualising “the location of each and every unit and formation” on marked and unmarked maps, and about his contemplating various factors, such as the ongoing Covid pandemic, a faltering economy, fractured global supply chains and whether the army and government “Would…be able to ensure a steady supply of spares, etc., ….in case of a long-drawn-out action? Who were our supporters in the global arena, and what about the collusive threat from China and Pakistan?” But, he reassured himself that he had the necessary reserves, and that the army was “ready in all respects” before the Hamlet in him surfaces again: Writes Naravane “but did I really want to start a war?”

Sure, military chiefs are assailed by doubts before a big operation or even small actions but, as history shows, usually these are mostly about the war/ops plan, the assets deployed, the sufficiency of resources to sustain it, and the quality of his commanders implementing it. But, why was he thinking about things that are the preserve of others laterally or higher in the food chain to weigh and evaluate, and which was not his remit? After all, Rajnath had handed him a “carte blanche”.

Last week, at a talk I gave to a Higher Command Course in a military training institution, a student officer, in response to my view that India and its military need to be more aggressive and assertive when it comes to war and warfighting, asked if the military should not be “more responsible” because of the economic straits the country is in, etc., the kind of talk especially from military officers that gets up my nose. Seemingly, Naravane’s type of thinking is the prevailing norm for officers slated for promotion to higher ranks. And I said to this officer what I say here regarding Naravane’s attitude: It is none of the military brass’ damn business to think like politicians or diplomats or economists. Attend on the offensively desirable military outcomes you should be delivering whether any recessive-minded government wants it or not!

Remember how the late great general and commander 17 Mountain Division, Sagat Singh, the man who singly got us the victory in the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971, handled the PLA with offensive disdain and, disregarding his immediate corps commander GG Bewoor’s directive, and the same protocol and CSG constraints Naravane faced, beat up on the PLA and retained Nathu La Pass for the country in 1967? And how Naravane’s predecessor in office, General K. Sundarji, in his Op Chequerboard, exactly 20 years later, showed resolve to tangle with the PLA that its High Command did not expect, forcing the Chinese to withdraw from their intrusion in Somdurong Chu? Imagine what a Sagat or a Hanut Singh, the great armoured commander, when he took over the same Chhangu-based 17 Div would have done with a carte blanche that Naravane was afraid to exploit.

The PLA is a puffed up paper dragon, deflate it, let local commanders mount continuous offensive tactical actions that may lose a bit of ground here, gain a bit of territory there, to make the LAC a live theatre. The army may be surprised by the dividend such a policy will fetch for its own reputation and by way of politico-strategic gains for the country with respect to its negotiating position. Being a perennial punching bag does not help.

Posted in asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, China military, civil-military relations, Culture, Decision-making, domestic politics, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Army, Indian ecobomic situation, Indo-Pacific, MEA/foreign policy, Military/military advice, society, South Asia, Tibet | Tagged China, history, india, Pakistan, politics | 50 Comments

Trade deal — Modi’s cringeworthy Twitter-X response, and ramifications

Posted on February 3, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[Modi & a triumphal Trump?]

Who writes and uploads Prime Minister’s Twitter-X messages? Because it is certainly not Narendra Modi, whose English language competence is confident but basic. His often used alliterations and other literary flourishes are, like for any good orator, what he practices before delivery from material handed him by somebody, his speechwriters(?). Why is this relevant? Because his purported reaction to Trump’s announcement of the India-US trade deal on his social media handle, Truth Social, was so cringeworthy, so needlessly servile and obsequious, it has done real damage.

It stamped India as an American camp follower, with its reputation in the world already plunging when, given its repeated evocations about the UN and the liberal world order, Delhi said nothing about Trump violating UN provisions and the international law, kidnapping President Nicolas Maduro from Caracas, and all but taking over Venezuela — even billing himself “President” of that country.

But first, consider (the screen shots of) Trump’s message on Truth Social and Modi’s response.

Trump:

Modi:

The effect of US President’s message:

For Trump, calling someone my “greatest friend” means zilch. He will throw Modi and India under the bus the instant Xi agrees to a trade deal and a mutually beneficial arrangement is agreed on regarding the US accessing Chinese rare earths and China US chips/microconductors. Wait and see! He is not in the least interested in India other than as a country with a leadership that can be easily coerced into doing anything he wants Delhi to do and views it as a useful pawn to have in hand in the big power game afoot with Russia and China.
Modi “agreed to stop buying Russian oil [which] will END THE WAR in Ukraine”. Re: The first part, India is already complying with Trump’s demand to shut down the energy traffic with Russia. As to the second part, the ridiculous cause and effect connection between Indian Russian oil purchases and ending of the Ukraine war is derived entirely from Trump’s finding a scapegoat for a war he said he’d end in a trice only to find that he had no inkling about how or why it was happening and, of course could not terminate as he had proclaimed. His cabinet puppets — treasury secretary Scott Bessent, commerce secretary Edward Lutnick, his White House trade adviser Peter Navarro than parrotted his scapegoatism.
According to Trump, the trade deal was the result of his acceding to the Indian PM’s personal “request” to an agreement that will see America reducing its 50% tariffs on Indian exports to 18% even as the Modi regime “will move forward to reduce their tariff and non-tarifff barriers against the United States to ZERO”. So the understanding here is 18% American tariffs in return for 0, as in zero, Indian tariffs!
“And the Prime Minister committed to buying”, Trump says, much beyond the $500 billion in energy, technology, coal, Agricultural and other products”. The other products here refer apparently to military hardware of all kinds.
Trump refers to this completely unbalanced India-US relationship as “amazing” — I suppose that is TRUE, because no other friendly state has agreed to such a trade deal!!
And, then came the expected self-congratulation. He attributed success in the deal to the “two people” — himself and Modi who, he claimed, “GET THINGS DONE, something that cannot be said for most.” This is certainly true. US policies are whatever gets into Trump’s head at the moment. But in terms of implementation, the American judiciary is playing spoiler in many social areas he’s mucking around in. But this is definitely the case with Modi. One wishes though that the Indian PM, who packs so much political power and support, had pushed foreign and military policies based on the “INDIA FIRST” principle he talked about during his first election campaign in 2014, but it did not inform his subsequent stance.

Ramifications of Modi’s message:

If Modi thinks Trump is his “dear friend” then he suffers from (hopefully, short term) amnesia. Because just 7 months ago, Op Sindoor is when Trump showed how dismissive he was of Modi, and what he thought of India by reasserting the traditional American policy tilt to Pakistan of propping up the latest tinpot Field Marshal ruling the roost there. And by resuming military aid — the initial tranche to refurbish and upgrade the Pakistan Air Force’s F-16 fleet, possibly to the Super Viper F-21 (or Block 70 F-16) level that was offered India as MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) option. It is a uniquely IAF “need” the Indian government has filled by the fast obsolescing 4.5 generation Rafale platform (that was shot down on the first day of Sindoor May 7, 2025) that the IAF craved, costing Rs 75,000 crores that France, with the Indian government’s acquiescence, is withholding source codes for!
The PM expressed delight for the reduction of tariffs on Indian goods and commodities to 18%, but what was he “delighted” about considering India is required to zero-out, by Trump’s reckoning, all tariffs on American products. Including “Agricultural” that the Indian Commerce Ministry has been trumpeting it mightily resisted?
Two “large economies” and “largest democracies” and such, is a load of rhetorical poppycock. If US companies actually move a whole lot of their manufacturing from China to India then (i) what cards will remain for Trump to negotiate a trade bargain with China that he desperately desires? (ii) won’t it run counter, moreover, to his own policy of arm twisting US industry to home-base all manufacturing? and (iii) with Zero tariffs on US exports, what will be the incentive and motivation for US industry to move its production base to India, rather than just selling their products whole with unhindered access to the vast Indian market???
One thing that nobody expected was the depths to which Modi abased himself before the US leader with this line — “President Trump’s leadership is vital to global, peace, stability and prosperity”. It is almost as if Modi was admitting he fouled up by derailing Trump’s spurious Nobel Peace Prize campaign by not joining Asim Munir in broadcasting, post-Sindoor, that minus the great peacemaker, India and Pakistan would have ended up bashing each other silly! And Modi was compensating with the utterly nonsensical afterthought to end his message — “India supports [Trump’s] efforts for peace”. This when, just in the last few weeks, Venezuelan sovereignty was violated, Greenland barely avoided an US military invasion and a US versus NATO fight in Nuuk, Iran is confronting a US naval-air armada off its shores, and Mexico is facing unilateral US military intervention ostensibly to wipe out the Sinoa-based and other drug cartels pushing cocaine into America.
May be like Denmark, which was the first NATO state to send its military detachments to fight alongside US troops in Afghanistan, and now finds itself targeted by Trump over Greenland, Modi may next consider, who knows, deploying the Indian military on a “peace” mission to help out the US — anything to curry favour with the White House! We will manage whatever occurs afterward. World peace uber alles! Thankyou, Trumpji!

Posted in Afghanistan, arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, China, civil-military relations, Culture, Decision-making, Defence procurement, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian ecobomic situation, Indo-Pacific, Islamic countries, Latin America, MEA/foreign policy, Military Acquisitions, Military/military advice, Nuclear Weapons, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Pakistan nuclear forces, Russia, society, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Trade with China, UN, United States, US., Weapons | Tagged india, kashmir, Pakistan, politics, Terrorism | 47 Comments

How not to tackle Trump

Posted on January 25, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[Modi & Trump]

Canadian PM Mark Carney caused a sonic boom at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last week by deflating US President Donald J Trump without much ceremony. He called a spade a shovel, told Trump where to get off, and won rousing acclaim from everyone for showing the gall that leaders of other countries, who have been at the receiving end of Trump’s increasingly wayward, intentionally hurtful, policies, have gritted their teeth but shied away from doing. Carney also laid out a road map for those countries that fear they cannot do without the US on their side and without Trump’s benevolence. He advised Middle Powers to cast aside complacency, and come together to mind their trade and security and to thwart “American hegemony”.

It was an extraordinary address because it broke through the barrier of fear and reticence of confronting America. Particularly, for Canada because the US accounts for 77% of Canada’s goods exports, 46% of total foreign direct investment, and over 60% of Canada’s merchandise trade (per 2023-2024 figures). If despite such US stranglehold on his country’s economy, Carney stomped on Trump and dared him to do his worst, it shows that Ottawa has had it with Trump and his unending shenanigans — a sentiment evidenced in the speeches by European leaders who followed Carney, such as the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, and President Emmanuel Macron in Paris who warned the US about the European Union retaliating with a trade “bazooka”, and by an European legislator who in parliament told Trump “to f***k off”!

Even as the Davos meet ended, a bunch of European NATO members, perceiving a serious military danger from Trump, airlifted troops to Nuuk to show solidarity with a Danish military contingent deployed for the defence of Greenland against America, indicating just how radically the security situation has changed, resulting in NATO, along with the liberal, rules-based, international order, coming apart. In Carney’s words — “We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition” — a phrase that sounded the gong on the prevailing disorder. (If you haven’t heard Carney’s Davos speech, do so — it is stunning in its eloquence and refreshing in its unvarnished view of the current international affairs. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izDAOvHz5Wc )

Further, as if to show that Canada and the world had economic alternatives, Carney sought rapprochement with China, slashing the 60%+ tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles to 6% as a curtain raiser to a possible trade agreement with Beijing. A discombobulated Trump, used to foreign leaders letting him walk all over them, and shaken by Carney’s unexpected and devastating onslaught, threatened, what else, 100% tariffs. Ho hum!

Less exposed than Canada but visciously targeted by Trump with 50% tariffs, India ended up doing a bit of what Carney recommended. Its exporters found alternative markets for their wares but this trend did not motivate Delhi to up the ante and, in callibrated fashion, pull away from America. Buckling under pressure, it chose instead to comply, acquiescing in Trump’s demand to stop the buys of Russian oil. The Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air reports a 29% month-on-month drop in the Indian offtake of Russian energy.

Restraint is unlikely to earn India and Narendra Modi any respite, because Trump will only pile on more pressure because, alone among large countries, it succumbed. A bully will not relent unless the bullied stands up to him — the reason for Carney and even the British PM Keith Starmer growing a spine, and then he will slink away. As Trump has time and again done when confronting a Putin or a Kim Jong-un, and now Carney.

The former BJP Rajya Sabha MP Swapan Dasgupta somewhat optimistically thinks the stereotype of the Hindu as “mild” and “patient” that Swami Vivekananda decried, has been replaced by Modi’s “assertive” Indian, and that India has acquired a more aggressive persona. If so, this change is nowhere reflected in the country’s America policy. In fact, the Modi government’s non-reactive, submissive attitude will only impel Trump to heap more scorn and humiliation on Modi and the country.

So far the Narendra Modi dispensation has studiously avoided saying or doing anything (Re: Trump projects — 50% tariffs, Venezuela, “Board of Peace” for Gaza, FTA under negotiation) that it fears would aggravate already bad relations. The external affairs minister (EAM) S Jaishankar, on his part, limited himself in this period to his politically safe and favourite schtick of dumping on terrorism and Pakistan, and getting passing foreign dignitaries to nod sympathetically. Thus, we had the Polish and the Spanish foreign ministers clucking censoriously even as Islamabad, on US instructions, funnels Pakistan Ordnance Board-produced artillery shells and small arms ammunition to Ukraine through the Warsaw-Kyiv rail link. And, just as futilely, the EAM has been plugging multilateralism from every available forum when it is actually on its last legs, just as the United Nations is. It proves that, as always, Delhi is the last in the station to know that the train it had long hoped to ride first class in, has gone off the rails. More generally, the Indian government seems to not even understand anymore what matters in international affairs, or even what the currency of exchange is. Psst.. it is hard power! Like in the good old days of gunboat diplomacy!

The rest of the world seems to have grasped this reality. And is responding as Carney, Merz and other European leaders did at Davos, including the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, all of whom said the old order is gone, never to return, and called for “independence” from the US, for military self-sufficiency, and for seeing the old style alliance as a vehicle for national subordination. They also agree on genuine free trade agreements as the solution, with von der Leyen referring to the FTA with India to be announced this Republic Day week as potentially the most economically potent agreement EU is signing.

Then there is Modi’s India, that still believes America is the answer to its prayer, when Trump has made it abundantly clear that he is contemptuous of Modi and his pretensions, and that he’d take every opportunity to kick India in the teeth. But that’s the sum and substance of Modi-Jaishankar’s “three monkeys” US policy — see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, verily fitting into Carney’s box of states that “go along to get along”. Delhi seems entirely oblivious to, or completely in sync with, the truism the Canadian leader also mouthed that “Sovereignty is the ability to withstand pressure”. What we are, therefore, witnessing is the Indian government’s determination to make good on relations with the US even if as an appendage, notwithstanding the traditional ally-appendages in Europe seeking an escape from thralldom.

It suggests that there is no one in the Indian government that can read Washington, or indeed Beijing. Because, if there were, in fact, somebody of note, Delhi would not step repeatedly into traps set by the US (civilian nuclear deal, Op Sindoor, technology transfer, free trade agreement) and China (LAC, trade imbalance), and look foolish. Sure, the commentariat has finally woken up to the perils of proximity to the US, but warnings had been repeatedly and consistently issued by this analyst in his books, blog, and other writings over the past 30 years about an absolutely unreliable America that Delhi needs to deal carefully with.

A deeper understanding of a foreign country comes from spending a lot of time there. But where America is concerned, there is no one in the government — not a single person that I know of, who has resided there for any length of time (Jaishankar pulled a short 3-year stint as political counsellor in the Washington embassy in the mid-1980s), and can leaven policy discussions within establishment circles with any special insights. Our diplomats and civil servants are like Indian academics and media persons — acquainted with America in arranged settings (official interaction, university and think tank seminars and conferences, or US State Department-hosted tours, and the like) that leave them dazzled, and yearning to somehow relocate there or, better still, to get their progeny settled with green cards!

From the enduring Indian national interest perspective, what Trump has done is to be welcomed! He has clarified the options for the Modi regime by closing the H1B visa gate for techies and prospective Silicon Valley millionaires, and the daily news of Indians getting shot, mugged, or harrassed, has put the NRI community on notice. The overconfidence of the Indian settler in the pre-MAGA days led to excesses. Such as the 90-foot-tall statue of Lord Hanuman, dubbed by some over-clever NRIs who installed it, as the “Statue of Union” in Sugar Land, Texas. Besides being considered an eyesore by the enraged local Texans, it is a goad for the Christian Nationalists of the American south and southwest that make up the MAGA flock. So far they have restricted themselves to mocking the Monkey God, reviling Hindus as savages, Hinduism as satanic, and Hindu religious symbols as an affront to Christianity. Soon they may take a hammer to the statue, and run the Indians out of the town.

The US east and west coasts are considered relatively liberal. But so was Texas until recently, whence the large NRI community in Houston, say. The upside is that the pesky Khalistani element among the Sikh Americans has gone quiet, and will stay quiet. After all, they can’t tell when Trump and MAGA will turn fully on them, and they may need Delhi’s support. As it is, the turbaned Sikhs are in the same category as the Hanuman statue — a magnet for the crazies to beat up on “bin Laden” look-alikes. Just as the red tika on sari-ed women’s foreheads, in the 1990s, drew the skinheads into physically attacking them in New Jersey.

What Messrs Modi, Jaishankar, et al, have not learned is that Trumpian transactionalism is not some stumble that will pass in 2029, but here to stay as the new pillar of American foreign policy. Delhi can still strike a deal here, a bargain there, if the price is right, and here Modi, to earn goodwill, has gone overboard with a spate of government-to-government deals for assorted military hardware and weapons platforms. But, rather, by its very nature, transactionalism will lead only to more transactions, not to what Modi had hoped — some grand scheme of comprehensive cooperation organically linking India to the US through intermeshed economies and the large NRI community in America, to stabilise South Asia, Asia and the Indo-Pacific!

With the FTA with the EU round the corner — what with von der Leyen and her colleagues as special guests at tomorrow’s Republic Day parade, I fear a disappointed Modi government will now think the EU will be what the US failed to be, and fall with relief into the European lap, to be as thoroughly exploited this time by the Europeans!

Posted in arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, China, civil-military relations, Culture, Decision-making, Defence procurement, domestic politics, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, Indo-Pacific, Internal Security, MEA/foreign policy, Military Acquisitions, Military/military advice, nonproliferation, North Korea, Pakistan, Pakistan military, Russia, sanctions, society, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, technology, self-reliance, Terrorism, Trade with China, UN, United States, US., war & technology, Weapons | Tagged canada, india, news, politics, trump | 53 Comments

Indian Air Force — the most luckless air force in the world

Posted on January 15, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[Rafale]

The Indian Air Force is the most luckless airforce in the world and its leadership is to blame for it. Once marked out as the leading force of an “Icarian India” with its span stretching from the Maghreb to Australasia, it is now reduced to something that is repeatedly beaten by so puny a thing as the Pakistan Air Force. What a fall! To pretend the IAF can take on the PLA Air Force, is to dream! But dream on!

In a pattern of longstanding, the IAF has been led by persons apparently determined to steer the force into the ground, much like the hot-dogging pilot with deficient flying skills, who destroyed the export potential of the Tejas by flying the plane into the desert sands at the UAE airshow a few months back.

It is nevertheless a mystery — the kind of hook Paris has into the Indian government. It is as if the Quai d’Orsay can make the Modi regime, the latest in the line, to do virtually anything it wants it to do. Forget about how French defence companies keep tabs, nurture support for the wares they peddle by courting promising military officers, Wing Commander level up, with all kinds of comfy attention, and by conducting lavishly hosted trips to Paris with all its allurements for the flagrank, and even media persons. And one hears too tid-bits of information pertaining to monies diverted into accounts of the ruling party of the day. But these are secondary factors. The real reason for France’s success lies elsewhere — in its promises relating to nuclear technology that it does not intend to ever deliver on, but means to use to successfully string India along. Our Prime Ministers, who are as inncocent of any technical knowledge as their generalist civil servants they rely on for advise, are seduced by such promises.

At the top are the twin nuclear promises relating to the transfer of miniature nuclear reactor technology to power submarines and aircraft carriers, and to provide Indian nuclear scientists access to the French Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) chamber — the Laser Megajoule facility near Bordeaux. The ICF creates extraordinarily high temperatures by firing lasers at nuggets of fusion fuel to create miniature thermonuclear explosions that help refine Hydrogen Bomb designs, something sorely needed because the Indian thermonuclear device tested in 1998 was a dud. What with the late, little lamented, Dr R Chidambaram, the greatest disaster to befall the nation’s nuclear weapons project, singlehandedly ensuring the capping of the Indian arsenal at the low yield fission level with his argument that India needed no additional testing beyond the 1998 tests, and then seeing to it that the small ICF facility in Indore was run into a state of such disrepair as to render it non-functional.

Hence, the importance of the French carrots dangled before the donkey of an Indian government that made Delhi successively buy the Mirage 2000, the scorpene diesel submarine, and now the Rafale — all incredibly wasteful deals that because of time and cost overruns have ended up costing the exchequer a third more than their original price tags of tens of billions of dollars — totaling hundreds of billions of dollars, and all because the Indian government never applied its mind, because it has no mind to apply.

The IAF’s procurement priorities are realised, aided and abetted by the apparatus of state that does not know its arm from its elbow where air warfare or any other military or mil-tech issue is concerned, and relies on advice from the very source — the Chief of the Air Staff who, personally, has the most to gain from it. Isn’t there a conflict of interest here? I am referring strictly to the metric the military services informally use to evaluate their chief of the day — whether he acquires for the service a prized foreign fighter plane, an aircraft carrier, or an imported tank, helicopter fleet, or artillery system. To be fair, the navy and army are no different — but these services are less egregious, less in the public’s face, in their acquisition objectives. The IAF keeps cawing about such deals enabling the service to reach its 42.5 squadron strength, that was recommended by the JRD Tata Committee post-1962 War. Technology has since moved on, but not so the IAF — it is sticking to that figure to cover up for its ills.

Because, performance-wise, what has the IAF, outfitted with the latest Western aircraft as per its wishes, done in war? In the 3-day farce — Op Sindoor, for instance, it managed to get one or more of its Rafales — supposedly the most advanced plane in its inventory, shot up on the very first day, and just like that over a billion dollars went down the drain. It matched the 1999 Kargil conflict record, when again, it lost two aircraft on the trot on the very first day.

What the IAF has done magnificently well, however, is burnish the reputation of the Pakistan Air Force and its indigenously assembled ex-Chinese JF-17, even though it was the J-10Cs that secured for the PAF its IAF Rafale kills. So much so, that combined with the IAF piloted Tejas mishap, countries like Indonesia that had seriously considered buying the Indian aircraft begged off, bought the Pak-built JF-17s instead and then, by way of spillover beneficial effect, also bought the drones the Pakistan defence industry produces! Bangladesh, Iraq, and Libya have lined up to buy the Block II version of the 4.5 generation Pakistan-made Chinese aircraft complete with an AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar and a Chinese off boresight air-to-air missile from a family of PL missiles that brought down the Indian Rafales, all available for a paltry $30 million.

India excepted, there are no Third World countries around anymore for Western countries to rip off. They have all wisened up. Why would they go in for a 4.5 gen Rafale — Iraq and Libya are also where the French feverishly pitched this plane, that India is paying $337 million per piece for when, for the same amount, they can buy ten JF-17s? Or, the $337 million could have bought 2-3 Tejas Mk1A, an aerodynamically and otherwise far superior aircraft to the JF-17. So, India remains the lone village idiot who gets fleeced left and right!

However, the math indicates an even more ruinous outcome: With Rs 3.2 lakh crores, or US $38.4 billion (at the conversion rate of INR 83-84 for a US dollar) committed for 114 Rafale, where’s the money for the Modi government to spare for any indigenously designed and developed aircraft? And, mind you, this sum only accounts for the platforms, all the weapons — the A2A Meteor and the A2G Hammer missiles cost a whole deal of extra, again in the billions of dollars! But comfortingly for HAL, the deal will only have it do what it has ever done — screwdriver 96 Rafales from semi-knocked down kits at its assembly lines, as it did the MiG-21s, MiG-27s, Jaguars and Su-30MKIs without, in the process, gaining for the country even an iota of combat aircraft design and development capability.

Further, the Rafale draft-contract stamps India as the go-to country for any Western government keen on having its defence industry subsidised by the Indian taxpayer. Not to miss out out on the feast, the German Chancellor Merz too came hither, happily flew kites with Modi and, for his troubles, pocketed a multi-billion dollar contract for the HDW 214 diesel submarine. This when the country makes nuclear-powered submarines for God’s sake!, and needed only to buy a conventional sub design and few select technologies, like optronic masts, which the Germans would have happily sold for a fraction of the cost of the entire, and entirely redundant and useless, HDW 214 package!

To return to the Rafale, the French were so brazenly confident that they could force the issue that Dassault did not concede a millimeter, and the final contract involves no transfer of source codes. This means that integrating every little Indian designed and produced ordnance or avionics tech, will necessitate going to the French company which will charge a hefty sum to do the needful — talk of bleeding a customer to death, and this will be for the duration of the aircraft’s 35-year service life. Moreover, indigenisation of the Rafale production starting at 30% will never exceed 60%! The negatives of such deals are many, and have been publicly raised for years and years now — mostly, I confess, by me in my writings. But these issues are not unknown to Indian defence ministry negotiators. In the event, the price negotiation team, involving IAF brass, should be held accountable for defalcation. May be a future government will investigate these deals.

Then again, official Indian negotiating teams are the darlings of Western governments for a reason — they play the perfect saps and suckers, and can be sold any bill of goods. Go ask the American negotiators how surprisingly easy it was to get the Jaishankar-led MEA team to agree to non-resumption of nuclear testing as condition for “civilian nuclear cooperation” in the 2008 nuclear deal with the US!

But for Air Chief Marshal Aman Preet Singh the Rafale purchase will prove a boon, cementing his reputation within the air force, at least. But it will just as surely relegate the IAF to the category of a third rate, foreign-dependent force — a status it was sliding towards for some time now, and fully deserves. In comparison, PAF is a second rate air force because it does more with less, even as the IAF, in contrast, is habituated to doing less with more. And, of course, the Rafale deal, as expected, will sound the deathknell for the Tejas Mk1A, Mk 2, and the advanced medium combat aircraft programmes — starved of funding so that the French firms led by Dassault can prosper.

But what does Aman Preet Singh care? Like his army and navy counterparts, he has specialised in talking up atmbirbharta to please the ignorant political bosses while plonking for imported goods. Predictably, Singh is in the running to replace General Anil Chauhan as CDS! If his record as CAS is any guide, Good Bye theaterisation!

The Prime Minister ceaselessly lectures the people about taking pride in swadeshi, and asks young talent to contribute to India’s startup-nation credentials, but his government still ends up getting pressured into buying imported weapons systems even as the military services chiefs pay no end of lip service to the desirability of arms self-sufficiency! But the record is irrefutable that, other than impoverishing the country, none of these exorbitantly priced Western armaments have done much of anything in actual military operations other than failing.

Posted in arms exports, asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, Australia, Bangladesh, China, China military, civil-military relations, corruption, Culture, Decision-making, Defence Industry, Defence procurement, DRDO, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's China Policy, India's Pakistan Policy, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Ocean, Indo-Pacific, MEA/foreign policy, Military Acquisitions, Military/military advice, Missiles, Pakistan, Pakistan military, SAARC, society, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Technology transfer, technology, self-reliance, United States, US., war & technology, Weapons | Tagged history, india, news, Pakistan, politics | 67 Comments

Gor is no solution for India-US relations

Posted on January 13, 2026 by Bharat Karnad

[Ambassador-designate Sergio Gor and the PM]

The Tashkent-born, Sergey Gorokhovsky, rechristened Sergio Gor, is seen by many in the MEA and in the Modi government as a deus ex machina that will put the derailed bilateral relations wih the United States back on track. They are apparently as unfamiliar with the Washington reality and the relative standing of people in Trump’s vicinity as the Indian media and commentariat.

Gor has the usual chequered history of a foreign-born trying desperately to fit in any which way and to find his place in the American society. Gor’s Jewish parents left the disintegrating Soviet Union for Israel in 1994 before relocating to the US five years later. Along the way, the young Uzbek got Catholic schooling and converted to Catholicism. Predictably, he chose rightwing anti-Communist Republican party political channels to make a mark and serve his ambition. Gor is like any of a host of Indian-origin Americans, some of whom latched on to the liberal Democratic party ideology and followed a similar path to visibility in the political realm.

Essentially, the Russian-speaking Gor, a publicist and pamphleteer, who worked with the late Senator John McCain before tacking to the Trumpian wind that took Washington by storm, was rewarded with a not too important line job as head of personnel appointments at the White House. This designation sounds grander than is actually the case because most senior appointees in the current US Administration represent different constituencies and had their separate lines to Trump. Indeed, Gor began canvassing for the ambassadorship to India, perhaps, after realising that he was losing out in the race for an influential policy-making job as assistant to the US President that Stephen Miller was closing in on. The Delhi embassy was an attractive consolation prize, considering he would enjoy four years of vice-regal life, of being fawned over by the Indian government, its functionaries at his beck and call, genuflecting before him at Roosevelt House.

Yes, it is the same Miller who fleshed out the US designs for Venezuela by saying, in effect, that America had a greater right to Venezuelan natural resources (mainly oil) than Russia and China which had heretofore hogged them, and who, with condescension dripping from his lips, explained to CNN the Hobbesian world Trump is shaping. “We live in a world, in the real world… that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power”, which he said defined “the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”

Misreading of Gor’s relative importance in the Washington hierarchy by the Indian Establishment is of a piece with Jaishankar and his MEA cohort believing that Trump’s second term as President would herald the Golden Age of India-US cooperation! Op Sindoor saw the dunking of such expectations in a tank of ice-cold water. It occasioned Trump’s show of utter contempt for Modi and for India because of his conviction that he had read the Indian PM well enough to know that slapping him down would not lead to Delhi reacting adversely, and that he could personally insult Modi and put India’s economic nose out of joint with the imposition of tariffs that no other country faced, as long as Trump now and then salved the Indian PM’s ego by calling him a “good friend” and, as Gor did, talking of India as “essential” to peace in the Indo-Pacific, and just so long as America continued to draw benefits from the four foundational accords — General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA), Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geospatial Intelligence (BECA).

Thus, the offer of membership in the Pax Silica, conceived to counter China’s advances in the microchip field and to firm up a stable supply chain, as a curtain-raiser to Gor’s ambassadorial tenure was counterpoised the very next day by Trump musing about a 25% tariff for any country with economic links with Iran atop the 50% tariffs Indian exports already face, with the threat held out of the tariffs being increased to the 500% level when all trade becomes nonsense. In like vein, the US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick dismissed the free trade agreement under negotiation as of little account and asked the Indian government to get to the back of the line of countries seeking FTAs, just because, as he revealed, Modi failed to call Trump when the latter expected him to!

So much for India’s essentiality and Modi’s closeness to Trump! But Modi’s and India’s being treated as doormat is acceptable to the PM’s advisers, who have been counselling restraint and still more restraint in dealing with Trump, who knows a punching bag when he sees it. This when the evidence clearly shows that a display of self-respect as reflected in a coldish reception to Gor, graduated standoffishness, and dilution of the foundational accords, combined with showy assertions of common interest with the EU and the leading European states and with Russia, would have had a tremendous impact, conveying to Washington the costs of taking Delhi for granted, and daring Trump to seek some other counterweight to China in Asia, which is not there.

But back to Gor, and his supposed access to Trump, and how it is expected to benefit India. If he was as valuable to Trump as people here make him out to be, why would the American President let him go, cart him off to distant Delhi? The fact is Gor cannot just pick up the phone, call Trump, and get some wrinkle or the other the Modi regime wants ironed out, to be done in a jiffy. With regard to Trump and Gor, it is more a case of a servitor being accommodated. But out of sight, out of mind, really matters where a US president like Trump is concerned, whose attention span is as short as his impulsiveness is electric. Gor did little in policy terms whilst in Washington, and can do even less from Delhi other than to snuffle Trump’s insults

Posted in asia-Pacific/Indo-Pacific, Asian geopolitics, China, China military, Culture, Decision-making, Europe, Geopolitics, geopolitics/geostrategy, Great Power imperatives, India's strategic thinking and policy, Indian Air Force, Indian Army, Indian democracy, Indian ecobomic situation, Indian Navy, Indian Politics, Indo-Pacific, MEA/foreign policy, Pakistan military, Russia, sanctions, society, South Asia, Strategic Relations with the US & West, Terrorism, United States, US. | Tagged China, india, news, Pakistan, politics | 16 Comments

Security Wise

India the big loser in the US-Iran War

Invest in a Foreign “pie in the sky” aircraft, drain Money and ATMNIRBHARTA

America preparing to cut and run from Iran

Catalytic War? Not quite!

Defence cooperation — Don’t do with Israel, Modiji, what you are doing with France

Rajnath Singh gave the right directive; why was General Naravane so fearful of taking a decision?

Trade deal — Modi’s cringeworthy Twitter-X response, and ramifications

How not to tackle Trump

Indian Air Force — the most luckless air force in the world

Gor is no solution for India-US relations

Search

Categories

Subscribe to Newsletter

Subscribe via RSS

Archives

Bharat Karnad’s Twitter Page