Does the highly volatile situation in West Asia favor multipolarity? This issue must be addressed beyond America’s foreign policy. For John Mearsheimer, a leading political scientist, the battle between the Democrats and the Republicans is like a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It is the deep state that runs American foreign policy, with the primary intention of maximizing power and being a global hegemon. This is what was articulated by Samuel Huntington in his Clash of Civilizations, where he warned that the West’s inability to adapt to the growing power and influence of other civilizations would lead to the decline of its own power and influence, and would be the greatest a threat to world peace.
The global order was largely unipolar from the Cold War until Russia stepped on Damascus during the Syrian Civil War following the Arab Spring. Since then, this world order has been constantly challenged. With the rise of the Global South, today’s world order has overturned the hegemonic power structure and is seemingly moving towards multipolarity. The Tehran-Beijing-Moscow axis poses a huge challenge to America’s global ambitions.
India and China have emerged as the two key contenders for leadership in the Global South. However, the nature of their approach varies widely. While China represents a direct conflict with the Global North, India has a more conciliatory approach.
As analysts understand, these gradual but changing realities are also visible in the American deep state. As the balance of power theory suggests, Washington has chosen to stand back and strengthen New Delhi’s position. The renewed excitement about the Quad and I2U2 groupings and their further expansion in building the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) are examples. However, therein lies the main challenge for Indian foreign policy, which has to juggle its various priorities – in the Global South, in managing its regional geopolitical compulsions and in its strategic partnership with prominent members of the Global North.
Peace was not meant to be
Turmoil in the politics of West Asia preceded the ongoing war. After the Arab Spring, when the United States decided to withdraw and turn to East Asia, regional regimes gradually abandoned their “client position” to explore other options. Over the years, the region began to see some semblance of an agreement with Syria back in the Arab League, a peace process initiated between Damascus and Ankara, and the Abraham Accords formally facilitating the normalization of ties with Israel. If not for the deal between Riyadh and Tehran brokered by China, the final closing picture could have been a handshake between Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the US president in the center.
However, the October 7 attack by Hamas upset all that. Washington, which had seen its share of mishaps in Ukraine, was also drawn back into the turmoil in West Asia.
Furthermore, Israel’s disregard for the rules of war and compliance with International Court of Justice (IC) and United Nations (UN) resolutions forced even Riyadh to publicly condemn Tel Aviv and suspend any normalization negotiations pending the creation of a Palestinian state.
India will have to chart its own path
As India continues to expand and strengthen its labor, trade and energy engagement with West Asia, it will need to be careful on the diplomatic front. Given its geostrategic importance, it should readjust its position in Iran and be cautious in its relations with the United States in the region. Iran’s October 1 attack on Israel and the latter’s impending response opened Pandora’s box. Any escalation would profoundly alter the balance of power in the region and threaten India’s strategic interests.
Additionally, the alleged involvement of the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) in India’s friendly neighbor Bangladesh, its secondary sanctions against Indian entities for doing business with Russia, and Republican candidate Donald Trump’s recent remarks on India’s import policies are just the latest examples of the complex nature of American foreign policy. Non-alignment will therefore continue to be a key component of India’s foreign policy, even as pragmatic strategic autonomy.
Moreover, India’s global image is critical to its leadership ambitions in the Global South. Although India supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its decision to abstain from the UN General Assembly resolution demanding Israel withdraw from the Palestinian territories could affect its position.
In terms of competition with China, the popular discourse is largely irrelevant. India is not in a position to compete with China in the Middle East, mainly because their interests vary across the region. India, unlike China, does not seek to be an alternative to the power of the United States. The claim that IMEC will challenge the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is also inaccurate and baseless.
In short, foreign policy is not a zero-sum game. Beyond America and China, New Delhi has its own case in the Middle East and Global South.
[Mohammad Gulrez, former VC and PVC of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), is a Professor of Political Science at the Dept. of West Asian & North African Studies, AMU]
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
