
Politics is deeply ideological—but does ideology really matter in geopolitics at all?
A few modern (if that’s a fair word) Islamic countries—Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan—have adopted an increasingly anti‑India position. For Pakistan, this stance is ideological; for Turkey and Azerbaijan, it is clearly pragmatic. Meanwhile, India has become friendlier with the Taliban, Iran (the current war notwithstanding), and the Gulf states.
Similarly, India’s closeness to Israel is not ideological—though cheerleaders on social media often present it that way. It is strategic and does not depend on Jews being tolerant of Hinduism. I have zero insight into how Israelis view Hinduism (nor do I, as a resident of India who never intends to visit Israel, particularly care). But that should not matter, because Israel is one of the very few all‑weather geopolitical partners India has.
India needs weapons and technology, and it gets them from Israel—so Israel is important to India. India needs oil and gets it from Iran and Russia—so they are important to India.
These statements may sound childish or crude, but they capture how geopolitics actually works. It does not run on ideology or cultural history. Much of the cultural narrative that intellectuals and pop‑culture try to weave around geopolitics is post‑hoc justification meant for an idealistic public. Even dictatorships engage in such storytelling—not just democracies. There are exceptions, of course. For instance, when the Nupur Sharma controversy broke, it triggered a small geopolitical crisis for India.
Nation‑states are both products of culture and creators of culture. Cultural and political anxieties were the prime movers of the Pakistan movement. But the lived realities of Pakistan, India, and even Bangladesh as nation‑states have produced their own cultural trajectories and divergences.
So should an Indian cheer for the bombing of a friendly totalitarian theocracy at the hands of its friend which is a selective liberal democracy {only for the chosen people) ?
No—not only because Iran is a friend of India, but because emerging economies that are democracies need at least the façade of a rules‑based international order to function. Donald Trump doesn’t seem to like the façade but diplomacy of varying shades still ought to be relevant in politics for years to come.

The stupidest own goal that the Iranian theocrats scored was to make a foe out of Israel. Until the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Israel had no beef whatsoever with the Iranians; instead, it considered Arabs to be its generational foe and Persians to be a somewhat friendly people (an attitude originating in the Old Testament).
But the Iranian rulers, for whatever reason, felt compelled to sponsor the worst militias in countries neighboring Israel and proclaim the end of the Jewish state as its aim. That has resulted in the Israelis being convinced that the Iranian government (or at least this form of 1979-inspired government) is an existential threat. And Israel has lost all patience to tolerate what it regards as existential threats. Now that almost all Arab nations have lost the zest for enmity with them and instead turned to commercial prospects, Israel can focus on dealing with Iran in as brutal a fashion as it wishes.
India should stay the heck out of this, and feel lucky that we are sort-of allied with the winning team here.
Greater Israel is probably not the best idea?
I didn’t say it was, nor that I approved of what’s been happening. I just tried to explain the war in power-politics terms. At some point, Iran had to accept Israel as a regional superpower with whom an accommodation would have to be made rather than as a pipsqueak to be extinguished (the Arab countries have come around to this realization).
I share your (and others’ on this forum) sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians who are being ground away by Israeli settlers (and the army), but there’s just going to be no sympathy for them in Israeli society unless that society feels secure from what it regards as existential threats. The Iranian regime has done the Palestinians no favor by its machinations in the Levant.
India is sort of allied with both teams
Maybe, but that’s better than being allied only with the losers (as we often seem to be).
The world is not divided into two factions like some video game.
Most countries have issues with neighbouring countries but are on solid terms with everyone else.
India is close with both Israel and Iran.
Israel is close with both Turkey and India.
USA is close with both India and Pakistan.
But PM Modi’s trip to Israel was fairly flagrant. Everyone does realpolitik, no doubt about that, but that was a miscalculation.
India hasn’t played both sides say the way Pakistan has..
These are observations.
Modi was blindsided but that won’t change Iran’s relationship with India.
Iran is letting Indian oil through and those Iranian navy guys have safe passage in India.
In all western narrative, Israel is always the victim and never the aggressor.
5 years down the line when Israel attacks Turkey, we will hear how Turks were historical allies of Israel and it was stupid of them to make a foe out of Israel, even though Turkey has done aboslutely nothing apart from making statements but Israel has already marked them as a threat.
And rinse and repeat.
But most younger people now realize that it is not other countries that make foe out of Israel but Israel that makes foe out of other countries. Israel is a tiny country with a stated goal of regional domination (Greater Israel) and they only achieve that by cutting all their neighbours to size and cause chaos amongst them.
Soon, US patronage will end, and great things will happen then.
>Soon, US patronage will end, and great things will happen then.
And……this will happen because?
This is a huge fail by the US tbh
Yes true
Again with the Islamist ummah fantasies.
Reality is:
Nothing is happening to Israel.
Your analysis makes the mistake that countries can always lose battles and nothing can happen to them?
What have US & Israel accomplished with Epic Fury apart from giving Iran a casus belli to close the Straits.
In any other scenario had Iran closed th Straits; the entire world would have joined in to blast them open.
This is a bit like Op Sindoor; what did that actually accomplish? Every failed attack gives the defender invaluable info for next time (they was a reason why India didn’t want to cross Pakistani airspace this this).
Hyper militaristic societies like Sino-Russia, PakIran & North Korea have the advantage in being war factories . Democracies do not alas
Op Sindoor basically raised the escalation barrier. Now it is up to Pak if they want to test it.
Pre 2008 Pakistan’s terror activities had no reprisal.
Post 2008 non military options – cricket ban, bollywood ban.
Post 16 – surgical strike in pakistani kashmir
Post 19 – strikes in pak proper
op sindoor – strikes on terror hideouts and paf bases
the entire reason pak used terror proxies post 71 is that they could not fight a conventional war. sindoor basically said that india would no longer differentiate between the two as well as differentiate between kashmir and pakistan proper.
the accomplishment is in the decline of terrorism numbers in kashmir and the rest of india throughout the years.
it is not zero yet but to deny that the numbers have not decreased by a great magnitude would also be false.
https://www.satp.org/datasheet-terrorist-attack/fatalities/india-jammukashmir
I am not saying “nothing” can happen to them but that “something” which happens will not be something huge.
>This is a bit like Op Sindoor; what did that actually accomplish?
I have added a post in response to this.
ukraine’s position of trying for a nato membership is cited as a sovereign right and russia is accused of attacking it.
in a similar vein the arabs have a sovereign right to host american troops on their soil. iran is not accused by the wider world of bombing gulf states.
https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/iran-seeks-repatriation-of-sailors-in-sri-lankaIran seeks repatriation of sailors in Sri Lanka
COLOMBO – Iran was in talks for the return of 251 sailors in Sri Lanka after one of its frigates was sunk near the island earlier this month, Tehran’s ambassador Alireza Delkhosh said on March 23.
Dr Delkhosh said crews from two vessels – 32 men from the IRIS Dena, which was torpedoed by a US submarine,t and 219 from the IRIS Bushehr, which was given safe harbour in Sri Lanka – wanted to return home.
“We are talking, and we are following this issue with the Sri Lankan government,” Dr Delkhosh said in a press conference broadcast on local networks, but which was not open to international media.
“I do hope that we can solve this problem as soon as possible”, he added, saying that they were being treated well but wanted to leave.
“Their only worry is that they are separated from their families,” Dr Delkhosh said.
There was no immediate reaction from the Sri Lankan authorities to Iran’s request.
on the other hand iranian sailors who took refuge in india, have been sent back on a chartered flight on 12th-13th march.
apparently sri lanka is citing a 1905 rule. looks like US pressure is at work.
oh my is Sri Lanka imprisoning them?!?
like glorified house arrest?
I dont think there is any controversy over the sailors in SL.
They will be sent back in due course.
InshAllah
The duck apparently made a cool 100 mill in 20 minutes. War mongering and de-escalation mumbo jumbo via truth social and market manipulation at its best. Insider trading but by whom? Conflict entrepreneurship at its immoral best.
Welcome back!
Was it him?