There is a growing chorus amongst sections of the Indian society asking why Pakistan is in the limelight mediating the tensions between the US and Iran, while India is left by the wayside. To some it signals loss of prestige and relevance.

To me, this feels like a non-issue that is rabble roused with wilful ignorance of the underlying dynamics.

Not every global situation requires India’s (or for that matter every country’s) involvement, and not every absence is a missed opportunity.

As a regular, opinionated citizen, without any political alignment, I feel a sense of relief. We do not want to jump from quicksand to quagmire. Whether by design or circumstance, staying away seems sensible.

It is wiser to protect one’s own ground than enter uncertain terrain—especially when our principle is simple: mind our own business.

Here are the reasons.

India’s objectives are different

India’s approach to global affairs is rooted in strategic autonomy and non-alignment. This means making decisions based on national interest rather than aligning with any one power bloc.

The world is going through significant shifts—trade disruptions, tariff changes, energy concerns, and broader economic uncertainty. India has its own priorities, including strengthening trade relationships and securing energy needs in a volatile environment.

Diplomatic latitude is limited. Focusing on enlightened self-interest like expanding trade deals and securing fuel supply seems both practical and necessary.

For Pakistan this could be a way of signalling their alignment to the US and asserting their relevance in world diplomacy.

Mediation in a conflict like this risks pulling India into a space where it may have to take implicit sides or dilute its independent stance. India has heft and other ways to signal stature.

India lacks the leverage that Pakistan has

India maintains a professional relationship with both the United States and Iran, but that does not translate into leverage for mediation.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has made deep overtures. They nominated Mr. Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. They recently got into an agreement with the US Government to jointly develop the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan. It is a $1B property owned by the Pakistan government, and they have given 50% of the stake to the US Government for joint development.

Pakistan and Iran have a cordial relationship and share a 900km long border. They have a significant Shia population. These give Pakistan a different kind of access and relevance.

Also during the negotiation process, India cannot be easily ‘bounced around’, making India a less convenient mediator. Pakistan, in contrast, may be seen as more flexible and situationally aligned.

Probability of Success

The positions held by the United States and Iran are not just different—they are fundamentally irreconcilable. These are not negotiations where small adjustments can lead to convergence. Establishing even a starting point is difficult, let alone reaching a resolution.

Entering a situation where the likelihood of success is so low does not seem like a prudent use of diplomatic capital. It is not just about facilitating dialogue, but bridging deep divides, which appears unlikely at this stage.

History

The 1979 revolution was primarily against American imperialism and the US backed Shah. Now, US has achieved ‘de-capitation’ of the Iranian regime, but the successor is someone who lost his father, wife and daughter in the attack. They have prepared for this scenario for over 40 years.

Interactions in the recent past have also created a deep trust deficit. Iran claims that the attack started just as the Oman mediated negotiations were about to close.

Even some Omani officials claimed that final presentations were made and things were about to be wrapped up when US unleashed its wrath. Under such circumstances rebuilding good faith discussions is very difficult.

Summary

India’s stance of staying away from mediating between the United States and Iran appears grounded in clarity of objective.

As for Pakistan’s involvement, they will have their own reasons and strategic considerations for stepping into that role—and that, too is none of India’s business.