Tensions in Iran have escalated sharply as protests intensify, with US President Donald Trump declaring that “help is on its way”, a remark that has further fuelled speculation of external intervention. According to a human rights activists’ group, more than 2,500 people have died since the current wave of protests began on December 28.
The harshest crackdown has unfolded since last Thursday, when larger numbers of demonstrators took to the streets. The Iranian authorities responded with force and imposed widespread communication shutdowns to curb mobilisation and information flow.
At the centre of the unfolding crisis is the question of how the US administration may respond, and how any escalation could influence India’s diplomatic calculations.
Diplomacy
Diplomatic engagement remains the first and most likely option. Iranian leaders have historically shown a strong ability to navigate crises through negotiation, even in hostile environments. This was evident during the Barack Obama presidency, when Iran opted to negotiate the JCPOA nuclear agreement despite crippling US sanctions.
While Iran’s political establishment is fragmented — with moderates favouring engagement and hardliners adopting a more confrontational stance — there is consensus across factions on preserving the regime under the Supreme Leader. This shared objective has often pushed Tehran to rely on dialogue as a way out of pressure situations.
Signals from Washington also suggest a preference for diplomacy. After Trump stated that Iran’s leadership had reached out for negotiations, the White House indicated that talks were being considered. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said diplomacy remained the President’s primary approach, adding that Iran’s private communications differed significantly from its public rhetoric. However, she stressed that military options were still available and that the President would not hesitate to use force if required.
Calibrated strikes
If diplomacy fails, Washington could move towards limited military action. Analysts believe the US, possibly in coordination with Israel, may target Iranian military assets, including Revolutionary Guards infrastructure, command centres, and weapons depots used by Tehran and allied militias.
A more severe escalation would involve targeting senior Iranian figures, recalling the killing of commander Qassem Soleimani during Trump’s first term. Trump has previously stated that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, could also be a potential target.
Iran’s conventional military vulnerabilities were exposed during last June’s 12-day conflict, when US and Israeli strikes severely damaged its air defence systems. Israeli attacks paved the way for American B-2 bombers to strike fortified nuclear facilities located deep underground.
The US Central Command has reinforced its presence in the region, with six naval vessels deployed, according to the Financial Times. The USS Mitchell and USS McFaul are stationed in the Arabian Gulf, while the USS Roosevelt operates in the Red Sea. These Arleigh Burke-class destroyers are equipped for anti-air, anti-submarine and surface warfare.
Additionally, the USS Canberra, USS Tulsa and USS Santa Barbara — Independence-class littoral combat ships designed for coastal operations — are also positioned in the Arabian Gulf. With multiple US warships operating close to Iran and support from regional allies such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Pakistan, Washington’s posture is unmistakably assertive.
Yet, all these measures involve operating from outside Iranian territory. Many experts argue that air strikes or naval attacks alone cannot ensure regime change. As one senior diplomat put it, removing a government “from 30,000 feet above” is extraordinarily difficult.
The ground option
This leaves the possibility of deploying US troops on the ground. Earlier this month, American forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with minimal casualties, prompting comparisons about whether a similar operation could be attempted in Iran. However, Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards and tight command structure would make such a mission far more complex and costly.
A direct ground confrontation between US and Iranian forces could quickly spiral into a full-scale war, especially if Washington seeks to assert dominance through prolonged engagement. Such a scenario would likely face strong opposition from Trump’s MAGA support base, which has historically criticised long US military involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
India’s position
Any US military action against Iran would have significant implications for India, much like earlier conflicts in the region. Diplomatically, New Delhi would find it difficult to endorse air strikes or direct military intervention inside Iran.
On the economic front, India has already reduced Iranian oil imports to negligible levels due to US sanctions imposed during Trump’s first term, making Iran a minor contributor to India’s energy mix.
A further complication could arise if Iran retaliates by targeting US bases in countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE or Qatar. Regional instability would place India on edge, given its deep stakes in West Asia. Nearly 8–9 million Indians live and work in the region, and around 60 per cent of India’s energy requirements are sourced from there. Any prolonged turmoil would threaten India’s energy security and could trigger inflationary pressures at home.