OPED by Wing Commander (R) JP Joshi
US President Donald Trump said that US military operations, Epic Fury, in Iran would end soon, while Tehran appeared to dismiss his statement.
“It’s going to be ended soon, and if it starts up again they’ll be hit even harder,” Trump told a news conference in Florida, after telling lawmakers that the campaign would be a “short-term excursion.”
Meanwhile, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) replied that they, not the Americans, would “determine the end of the war”.
On 28 Feb 2026, the US and Israel conducted joint military operations, which targeted the “Leadership House” in Central Tehran, besides other targets of strategic importance.
Iranian state media confirmed on 01 Mar 2026 that the 86-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei was killed during the operation. According to reports, the attacks have “also claimed the lives of several members of the Ayatollah’s family, including his daughter, son-in-law, and grandchild, along with approximately 40 senior officials and military commanders”.
United Nations (UN) Security Council Emergency Meeting
The UN Secretary General, António Guterres, stated that the day’s events constituted “a grave threat to international peace and security”, and urged the international community to unite and pull the entire region “back from the brink”.
Mr. Guterres reminded the council that Article Two of the UN Charter states that all Member States “shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State,” and that international law and international humanitarian law must always be respected.
Mr. Guterres also opined that the military action that has embroiled countries across West Asia carries the risk of “igniting a chain of events that no one can control in the most volatile region of the world.” He further called for de-escalation, cessation of hostilities, and immediate return of all parties to the negotiating table, most notably on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.
Reasons for the war, as stated by the US, Israel, and Iran at the United Nations Security Council meeting on 28 Feb 2026, are summarised in the subsequent paragraphs.
United States of America (US). Ambassador Mike Waltz of the United States said that the strikes on Iran were directed towards “dismantling its ballistic missile capabilities, degrading naval assets being used to destabilise international waters and to disrupt the machinery that arms proxy militias”. Further to this, he added that the aim is to ensure that “the Iranian regime can never, ever threaten the world with a nuclear weapon.” He also stated that “No responsible nation can ignore persistent aggression and violence.” In addition, he warned that Iran’s continued pursuit of advanced missile capabilities, coupled with its refusal to abandon nuclear ambitions – despite diplomatic opportunities – represents “a grave and mounting danger”.
Israel. Ambassador Danny Danon said that Israel’s strikes on Iran were primarily to stop “an existential threat before it became irreversible.” Israel, as per him, had acted out of necessity because the regime left no reasonable alternative, building nuclear weapons in disregard for international law, murdering its own citizens and crushing dissent, expanding missile arsenals and arming proxies across the region – all while declaring its intention to erase Israel from the map. He further stated that “Tehran had been required to stop enriching uranium and to allow full inspections but did not do so.” Also, he was concerned that Iran was building “the means to force an irreversible reality with our backs against the wall. That is not a future Israel will accept.”
Iran. Iran’s Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani stated that “this morning, the United States regime – jointly and in coordination with the Israeli regime – initiated an unprovoked and premeditated aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran for the second time in recent months”. “This is not only an act of aggression; it is a war crime and a crime against humanity,” he insisted, accusing the US and Israel of deliberately attacking civilian populated areas in multiple large cities. He did not agree with the representatives of France, the UK, and other Western representatives, who categorically rejected the assertions regarding Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme. He further elaborated that “the invocation to ‘pre-emptive attack,’ claims of imminent threat, or other unsubstantiated political claims, are unfounded legally, morally, and politically.”
The Progress of the War
As of early 03 Mar 2026, the conflict between the United States, its allies, and Iran has expanded dramatically beyond its initial theatre centred in West Asia. U.S. and Israeli forces continue to strike Iranian military and strategic infrastructure.
Iran has responded with ballistic missiles and drone attacks targeting U.S. positions and allied states in the Gulf and beyond. Diplomatic efforts that had been underway, including indirect channels via neutral states such as Oman, have stalled amid the intensity of hostilities.
On 4 Mar 2026, the scope of hostilities extended beyond the region and into the Indian Ocean region, when a U.S. Navy nuclear submarine torpedoed and sank the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena approximately 40 nautical miles south of Galle, Sri Lanka, while the vessel was returning from the 2026 International Fleet Review and Exercise MILAN hosted by India.
This happened in international waters far from the Gulf, expanding the geographical scope of the conflict and raising urgent concerns about regional as well as maritime security. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the strike, describing it as the first torpedo sinking of an enemy warship by an American submarine since World War II — a characterization that some analysts note is technically misleading (it was the first acknowledged U.S. torpedo kill of this kind) but reflects the Pentagon’s framing of the action.
The sinking resulted in the deaths of many of the reported 180 crew members on board the warship; many are still missing, and it is reported that 87 bodies have been recovered, and 32 have been rescued by the Sri Lankan Navy. The search and rescue operations by the Sri Lankan Navy are continuing in search of any more survivors of the ill-fated frigate.
Peace Is Elusive?
This submarine attack in the Indian Ocean region (IOR) further complicates the strategic environment. Firstly, it has expanded the geographic scope of the war beyond the Gulf and Levant region into the IOR, a critical global trade corridor. It is a vital maritime highway through which 80% of global oil shipments pass, and it also facilitates 90% of India’s trade by volume and 70% by value, making it indispensable for India’s economic growth.
Secondly, submarine warfare introduces escalation risk across other domains, increasing the risk of miscalculation. Naval engagements at sea, especially involving submarines, are inherently silent, less transparent, and thus more dangerous than aerial or surface engagements.
Thirdly, India, Sri Lanka, and other states now find themselves unwittingly implicated in the optics and logistics of the conflict; the frigate was returning after a friendly visit to an event hosted by India; and Sri Lanka on account of the incident happening South of Galle, Sri Lanka, as also the fact that Sri Lankan responded to the Mayday call, for Search and Rescue mission.
Under these conditions, a formal ceasefire — the kind widely hoped for in diplomatic circles — remains unlikely in the immediate term. The focus, therefore, must shift to managing the intensity of conflict, limiting it, and preventing uncontrolled escalation.
Managing the War: Transitional Steps Toward De-escalation
Phased Maritime De-Escalation
The good part of this war is that neither side wants escalation, as is evident from their choice of targets, avoidance of attacks on commercial shipping, and avoidance of mining in the region, especially in the Strait of Hormuz.
The sinking of IRIS Dena could be considered an aberration, though it has surely complicated matters. Thus, maritime de-escalation should be prioritized to limit the spread of conflict.
Maritime safety must be central to any de-escalation framework. This can be in the form of ‘quiet naval understandings’ between the active participants, viz. US, Israel, and Iran, through back-channel communications facilitated by neutral states like Oman, Switzerland, and India.
These could take the form of establishing unpublicised “at-sea protocols”, which could include clear identification standards for naval vessels in international waters; mutually agreed-upon procedures for tracking foreign warships to avoid misidentification; and rules for submarine operations in close proximity to major shipping lanes of communication.
Such mutually agreed protocols would not require immediate public announcements but could reduce inadvertent clashes between navies operating far from their home waters.
Regional Maritime Safety Architecture
Even with the ongoing war, a maritime safety architecture can be designed to limit escalation and keep the key sea lanes open, including the Strait of Hormuz and the various IOR sea lanes.
All high-risk naval and air exercises should be suspended in overlapping zones around the Gulf/ Levant and adjacent IOR regions.
Lessons from the Cold War
Create deconfliction mechanisms to prevent accidental encounters between warships and submarines. This pattern has historical precedent: during the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet naval forces adopted protocols to prevent collisions, unintentional escalation, and crises and conflicts.
To reduce the risk of inadvertently starting a war that could impose unacceptable costs on both sides, the US and the Soviet Union adopted risk-reduction measures, such as continuing dialogue on perceptions of inappropriate behaviour and creating mechanisms to enhance information exchange and crisis communications management.
One lesson of Cold War diplomacy is the important role of greater transparency and predictability in military activities, clearly defining what is appropriate, as well as threatening or hostile behavior, and scenarios for potential escalation.
The intention was to minimise the chances of misperception, miscalculation, and inadvertent escalation. Red lines of “dangerous military activities” were clearly identified and defined. Detailed information and advance notification for missile and other test launches were required to be shared by both sides.
Third-party Verification Mechanisms
Engaging neutral states or international organizations in intelligence and surveillance exchange, which is strictly technical in nature and not political. These can help build confidence that belligerents are reducing provocative operations rather than hiding them for tactical advantage.
Multi-Track Diplomacy
Direct negotiations between the U.S. and Iran remain deeply politicised and are thus untenable, as of now. However, multi-track diplomacy involving secondary channels can lay the groundwork for future dialogues.
Gulf and Regional Intermediaries
Qatar, Oman, India, and even Saudi Arabia have diplomatic contact with both Tehran and Washington. They can help create and convey red lines and negotiate their sequencing. Continue with the process that yields incremental outcomes that allow both sides to claim tactical victories, all in a “face-saving” language that can bridge their respective hardline positions.
Global Powers
China and Russia have criticized the conflict and have interests in preventing widespread destabilisation. While not neutral, their involvement in diplomatic initiatives can provide alternative negotiation frameworks that belligerents perceive as less asymmetrical.
The United Nations and Track II Networks
Formal UN action remains constrained by Security Council veto dynamics. Yet quiet mediation by UN envoys and nongovernmental channels (Track II) can help avert inadvertent escalation. The UN Secretary General has stated on record, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities and de-escalation.” He further emphasised that a failure to do so increases the “risks of a wider regional conflict with grave consequences for civilians and regional stability.”
He strongly encouraged “all parties to return immediately to the negotiating table.” He reiterated that there is no viable alternative to the peaceful settlement of international disputes, in full accordance with international law, including the UN Charter.” The UN Charter provides the foundation for maintaining international peace and security.
India’s Strategic Role
India has adopted a neutral stance, as is evident from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) statement of 28 Feb 2026. It states that India is “deeply concerned at the recent developments in Iran and the Gulf region”, and urges all sides to exercise restraint, avoid escalation, and prioritise the safety of civilians.”
Lastly, it reiterates India’s continued belief that “dialogue and diplomacy should be pursued to de-escalate tensions and address underlying issues.” The statement also emphasises that “sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states must be respected.”
India’s diplomatic posture, which is rooted in strategic autonomy, dialogue, diplomacy, territorial integrity, and respect for sovereignty, places it in a unique position. India has bilateral ties with both Iran and the US. With Iran, it has relations spanning trade, energy, and infrastructure; is a democracy like the US and is one of its major security partners.
The most important strategic consideration is that India has no stake in extended warfare in the region. It prioritises regional stability and uninterrupted commerce with the region, because India’s energy requirements, trade, freedom of navigation & maritime security are issues that demand a stable region.
In addition, about 10 million citizens work in different countries in the region – their safety is India’s big concern right now, due to the war, which has led to the stoppage of all flights from the region.
India’s emphasis on sovereignty, peace, maritime security, and freedom of navigation now resonates more strongly, given its large stake in regional stability and the recent participation of the sunk frigate IRIS Dena in an Indian-hosted exercise.
This makes India an important interlocutor in promoting confidence-building measures and de-escalation dialogues without defaulting to aligning with either side.
Issue-Based Negotiations
A comprehensive peace agreement is unrealistic under the current conditions of hardened postures and escalating violence. Negotiations that are incremental, reversible, and issue-focused would be an excellent starting point for a peace agreement, eventually.
Humanitarian Concerns.
Negotiations could include humanitarian aspects such as protecting human life, establishing safe corridors for civilians, and temporary pauses for humanitarian issues tied to verifiable conditions.
Maritime Safety
A Gulf-Indian Ocean Code of Conduct could be evolved that guarantees freedom of navigation and deconfliction procedures.
Proxy Containment
Arrangements to limit proxy operations by Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Shi’ite militias, and Houthis that are operating in various countries of the region, viz. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon. This is an important consideration in the US and Israeli demands and is also consistent with the UN Charter.
Strategic Dialogue Tracks
Technical conversations about nuclear and missile issues need to be pursued, as per the UN Charter, and should not be stopped due to frontline confrontations.
The discrete issue-based tracks enumerated above will help reduce political pressure on leadership and lower the stakes of incremental progress.
Political Realities: Iran and the US
Iran
After the successful decapitation strikes by the US and Israel, leading to the death of the Iranian Supreme leader along with top military commanders, his family & others, the sinking of IRIS Dena, and other losses, the Iranian leadership cannot appear to “back down.”
However, maintaining a protracted, costly conflict also puts economic and social pressure on Tehran. It is most likely a strategic calculation aimed at weakening U.S. resolve, rather than achieving an outright reversal of strategic objectives.
United States
Congressional scrutiny and domestic political constraints are intensifying. For the present, the US Senate voted down a resolution moved by Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine on 04 Mar 2026, with a 47-53 vote along party lines, on a war powers resolution to prevent Trump from continuing the war with Iran.
The US has up to 60 + 30 days to end the war before Congressional approval becomes mandatory, as per the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The expansion of operations into the Indian Ocean theatre may further amplify calls for defined strategic limits and clear objectives, potentially creating leverage for diplomatic engagement.
India’s Neutral but Affected Status
India is in a development and growth phase of its life cycle as a developing nation, and this dictates its continued focus on the importance of peace, respect for sovereignty, and freedom of navigation in high seas, including in the IOR.
The March 04 sinking of IRIS Dena, coming after the ship’s visit to India, underscores India’s stakes in maritime safety and geopolitical stability. India cannot align fully with either side’s narrative but can play a facilitating role by advancing confidence-building measures, encouraging deconfliction mechanisms, and backing multilateral maritime security dialogues.
India should, as far as possible, try to facilitate dialogue through the United Nations, an organisation designed for such eventualities that is still operational. This approach aligns well with India’s longstanding doctrine of strategic autonomy, which is not strict equidistance but issue-specific alignment deeply rooted in national interest and regional stability.
Conclusion: Peace Through Structure, Not Declarations
The torpedoing of IRIS Dena on 04 Mar 2026 has expanded the theatre of war and raised the stakes. Immediate peace remains unlikely. Yet the extension of hostilities into the Indian Ocean also intensifies the imperative for structured restraint.
Peace in this environment will not emerge from grand declarations. It will be forged incrementally, through maritime safety agreements, phased de-escalation steps, multi-track diplomacy, issue-specific dialogues, and the careful management of political realities.
For India, supporting stability and maritime security is not just principled; it is central to safeguarding its national interests in a turbulent and violence-prone regional order.
- OPED by Wing Commander (R) JP Joshi, IAF
- THIS IS AN OPINION ARTICLE. VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR
