Barbara Tuchman once wrote that one of the enduring mysteries of history is why governments so often pursue policies that run against their own interests. To admit error and cut losses, she observed, is rare among individuals and almost unknown among states. And writing about the atmosphere before the First World War she noted that there was “an aura about 1914 that caused those who sensed it to shiver for mankind. Tears came even to the most bold and resolute.” Those lines feel uncomfortably familiar today. Perhaps we have not seen the worst yet. Shakespeare’s lines in King Lear come to mind: “It’s never the worst, when you can say it’s the worst.”The war now unfolding across West Asia involving Israel, Iran, the United States and a widening circle of regional actors is not simply another regional crisis. It has begun to reshape the strategic environment around India.For decades India’s foreign policy vocabulary has revolved around one idea. Strategic autonomy. The principle has guided Indian diplomacy since the end of the Cold War and long before. India does not join alliances. It maintains relations with competing powers. It preserves the freedom to take independent decisions.But doctrines acquire meaning only when they are tested.The present conflict raises a difficult question. What does strategic autonomy mean when war erupts in one’s own strategic neighbourhood? Because West Asia is not distant from India.Nearly two thirds of India’s oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Millions of Indians live and work in the Gulf states. Trade routes linking Europe, West Asia and Asia cross waters that are now shadowed by missiles, drones and naval deployments.The conflict is unfolding within the arteries of India’s economy. Yet India’s public voice during the crisis has been notably subdued and often unheard.Hormuz and the limits of controlThe Strait of Hormuz has become the clearest symbol of India’s dilemma.The crisis has resulted in a staggering halt to commercial shipping that moves through the Strait. Insurance withdrawals and security fears have disrupted the flow of energy on which much of the world depends.India appears to have secured limited transit permission for some of its vessels through the Strait. This shows that India retains diplomatic capital in Tehran even during confrontation between Iran, the United States and Israel. But it also reveals the limits of influence.Hormuz has not reopened as a stable international waterway governed solely by law. It has become a negotiated corridor where passage depends on relationships and tactical understandings. India has secured exceptions. It cannot control the strategic environment. Outcomes still depend on the nature and intensity of the conflict. In this context, strategic autonomy resembles careful navigation through the war of other powers.The Dena episodeAnother episode illustrates the same dilemma.The Iranian naval vessel IRIS Dena was torpedoed by a United States submarine in the Indian Ocean near the coast of Sri Lanka. The vessel was widely described as a training ship rather than a frontline combat platform. It was sailing home after the 74-nation MILAN Naval Exercise of the Indian Navy held under the theme “Camaraderie, Cooperation, Collaboration”, and where it was an invitee. While the legality of the incident has been debated, strictly speaking, under the laws of armed conflict belligerent vessels can be targeted in international waters.In this photo released by Sri Lankan President Media Division, Sri Lankan Navy sailors rescue Iranian sailors from IRIS Dena warship after their ship sank outside Sri Lanka’s territorial waters, near Galle, Sri Lanka, March 4, 2026. Photo: AP/PTI.Yet the issue for India goes beyond legal interpretation. India has stated that it is the guardian of the Indian Ocean. The episode is a matter of concern for India not merely because of its legality but because of its strategic meaning. The ship had participated in a naval exercise of the Indian Navy and the humanitarian scope of the tragedy where more than a hundred sailors perished could not be denied but seemed to have been given little attention. That apart, a conflict that began in West Asia has begun to extend into the maritime domain of the Indian Ocean. This region carries a significant share of the world’s energy and commerce. Any widening of hostilities in these waters inevitably affects global stability.The incident also is a reminder that maritime security in the Indian Ocean cannot be taken for granted. Even conflicts that originate elsewhere can spill into regions that depend on open sea lanes and predictable maritime order.Finally, it underscores the importance of restraint among major powers. Military actions taken far from the primary theatre of conflict can have unintended consequences for countries that are not parties to the war.India does not seek to interfere in the conflicts of others. But it has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the Indian Ocean remains a stable maritime space where commercial traffic and energy flows continue without disruption.The escalation trapThe deeper risk lies in the dynamic of escalation itself.Modern warfare allows advanced militaries to destroy targets with extraordinary precision. Missile sites, command centres and radar networks can be struck quickly and effectively. Such successes often produce a dangerous optimism. Leaders conclude that pressure is working and expand the campaign.Meanwhile the attacked state rarely collapses as expected. External pressure often strengthens internal cohesion. Nationalist sentiment rises and the conflict grows wider.Political scientist Robert Pape has described this phenomenon as an escalation trap.History offers many examples – Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The present conflict risks falling into the same pattern. Israel and the US may dominate the battlefield in the short term. Iran’s strategy appears different. Rather than seeking immediate victory it seeks to raise the costs of the conflict through missile strikes, maritime disruption and regional pressure.In such wars the decisive arena becomes the broader international system. Energy markets. Shipping routes. Diplomatic alignments. India lies directly within that system.The danger of borrowed narrativesWithin India’s domestic debate another tendency has appeared. Some voices have embraced an almost enthusiastic identification with Israel’s military posture. Israel is presented as a model of decisive statecraft and technological power.But the comparison is misleading. Israel operates within a formal alliance system anchored by the United States. Its strategic doctrine reflects a compressed geography and a very specific security environment.India’s strategic exposure is different. Our vulnerabilities lie in energy flows, supply chains, diaspora safety and macroeconomic stability. Admiration for another state’s military doctrines does not change those structural realities. Strategic autonomy was never about choosing sides emotionally. It was about maintaining relationships across competing power centres. India’s ties with Israel, its partnerships with the United States, its long-standing engagement with Iran and its deep economic links with the Gulf all form part of a complex diplomatic architecture. Reducing that architecture to ideological alignment would weaken rather than strengthen India’s position.The test of balanceWhich brings us back to the question of strategic autonomy.Autonomy does not mean insulation from global conflicts. It means the ability to protect national interests while navigating them. India still possesses the structural foundations that make such navigation possible. Economic scale. Diplomatic reach. Relationships across rival blocs.But autonomy is not a static condition. It must be exercised continuously.The Hormuz episode shows that balanced diplomacy can still secure practical outcomes such as passage for Indian shipping. At the same time the Dena incident reminds us how quickly conflicts can spill into regions central to India’s own security.Tuchman’s warning about the difficulty of reversing dangerous policies should remain in mind. Great powers often persist in wars long after the costs become visible. For India the challenge is not to determine the outcome of this conflict.The challenge is to ensure that the widening shadow of the war does not destabilise the maritime and economic systems on which India depends.Strategic autonomy was meant to expand India’s choices. The question now is whether India is prepared to exercise those choices with clarity in a world where major powers increasingly reshape the rules. If autonomy becomes merely a phrase repeated in official speeches it will gradually lose meaning. If it becomes the basis for confident and independent diplomacy during moments of crisis it will remain one of India’s most valuable strategic assets.This war is not India’s war. But its consequences already belong to India.Nirupama Rao is a former foreign secretary.