Editorial

On the 21st day of the escalating U.S.–Israel–Iran conflict, former U.S. President Donald Trump has ignited a diplomatic storm by branding NATO allies as “cowards” for refusing to assist in securing the strategic Strait of Hormuz. His remarks, delivered amid rising oil prices and intensifying military operations, reveal not only frustration but a deeper fracture in the architecture of Western alliances.

The Strait of Hormuz is no ordinary waterway—it carries nearly a fifth of global oil supply. Its disruption has already triggered economic tremors worldwide, with energy prices surging and supply chains strained. In such a context, Trump’s demand for allied intervention may appear pragmatic. Yet the response from Europe and other NATO partners reflects caution rather than cowardice. Nations like France and Germany have made it clear that any involvement must follow de-escalation and respect for international law, not precede it.

At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental question: Is NATO a military instrument of U.S. strategy, or a collective security alliance guided by consensus? Trump’s assertion that “without the U.S., NATO is a paper tiger” underscores a long-standing American grievance—that allies benefit from U.S. protection without sharing proportional burdens. However, this argument overlooks the equally valid concern among allies that they were neither consulted nor convinced about the initiation of this conflict.

Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric risks weakening the very alliance he seeks to mobilize. Diplomacy, not derision, has historically been the glue of NATO unity. Publicly shaming allies may harden their reluctance rather than inspire cooperation. In a conflict already threatening to spiral across the Middle East, unity cannot be coerced through insult.

There is also a strategic paradox at play. While Washington demands burden-sharing, it simultaneously signals possible unilateral escalation, including expanded troop deployments and aggressive military options. Such mixed messaging fuels uncertainty, making allies wary of being drawn into an open-ended war with unpredictable consequences.

Ultimately, the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is not merely about oil or naval escorts—it is a test of international order. If alliances fracture under pressure, the vacuum will not remain unfilled. Other powers will step in, reshaping global influence.

Trump’s outburst may resonate domestically, but on the world stage, it exposes a troubling reality: when leadership turns confrontational within alliances, collective security begins to unravel.

The ongoing escalation in West Asia, particularly the US-Israel-Iran conflict, has cast a long shadow over India’s ambitious trade agenda, most notably delaying negotiations for free trade agreements (FTAs) with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and Israel. A senior Ministry of Commerce official confirmed that the war’s direct involvement of key parties has stalled progress, pushing talks into uncertainty at a time when India seeks to diversify partnerships and secure energy and investment flows.

India relaunched GCC FTA discussions earlier this year, with the Terms of Reference signed in February 2026 and a Joint Statement formally launching negotiations later that month. The pact holds immense promise: GCC nations account for a substantial portion of India’s energy imports, host millions of Indian expatriates, and represent growing markets for Indian goods and services. A comprehensive agreement could reduce tariffs, enhance market access, boost bilateral trade beyond current levels, and provide strategic depth to India’s West Asia engagement. Similarly, bilateral FTA talks with Israel—initiated with an initial round in February—aim to build on strong defense, technology, and agricultural ties, potentially unlocking innovation-driven growth.

Yet, the conflict’s ripple effects are undeniable. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, attacks on energy infrastructure, and the preoccupation of Gulf states and Israel with security priorities have shifted focus away from economic diplomacy. Reports indicate GCC negotiations may not resume meaningfully until the second half of 2026, while Israel talks face similar postponements. This delay risks prolonging uncertainty for businesses, slowing FDI inflows, and exposing India to volatile oil and gas prices amid broader supply chain strains.

In contrast, India’s FTAs with the UK and EU remain resilient and on track. The UK pact, signed last year, is slated for implementation by early May 2026 after resolving minor issues, promising tariff reductions and boosted services exports. The EU agreement, concluded in January 2026 as a landmark deal, is progressing toward ratification and entry into force later this year, with expectations of doubled EU exports to India by 2032 through widespread tariff eliminations. These Western-oriented deals underscore India’s pragmatic “FTA 2.0” strategy: prioritizing stable, less geopolitically volatile partners while navigating regional flashpoints.

The West Asia crisis highlights a core tension in India’s foreign economic policy—balancing deep historical and economic ties to the Gulf and Israel against the imperatives of energy security and strategic autonomy. While delays are regrettable, they are not fatal; India can use this period to refine positions, strengthen domestic preparedness, and explore interim confidence-building measures. Ultimately, a de-escalation in the region would be the swiftest path to resuming momentum. Until then, New Delhi’s diversified trade outreach—evident in the UK and EU progress—serves as a buffer, ensuring that one theater’s turmoil does not derail the broader vision of a $5-trillion-plus economy integrated globally.

• SAS Kirmani