It is over five weeks since Israel and the United States initiated a war against Iran. During this period, the conflict has extended beyond Iran’s borders and impacted the entire Persian Gulf, the Levant (in Persian: Shamat) and the Red Sea, with significant economic repercussions felt worldwide.But what is the purpose of this war? It is clear that attacking a country and utilising the most lethal weapons to destroy its military, industrial, economic, scientific and educational infrastructure not only undermines democratic foundations but also creates a possibility for state collapse, or the beginning of internal conflicts supported by external powers, and delays a country’s development programmes for years. Such a war could lead to shifts in the regional order, instability and insecurity, and pose a threat to the national interests of near and far neighbouring countries, including India.To date, Iran has effectively continued its resistance. Public opinion around the world is also increasingly losing faith in the rhetoric of the governments attacking Iran. The opposition to this war is growing in numerous countries. Moreover, the positions of various European and Asian states reflect a refusal to support war-mongering regimes.In this regard, the approach taken by the British government, a long-standing supporter of the US in carrying out numerous military operations, especially in West Asia and countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, is noteworthy: the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has publicly stated that the United Kingdom will not participate in the war against Iran.Iran has held a significant place in British foreign policy for approximately two centuries. Beginning with Britain’s presence in India from the 18th century and escalating competition with Russia during the 19th century, Britain sought to position Iran as a “buffer state”. Geopolitically, maintaining an “independent Iran” prevented Russian expansion from Central Asia towards the south and safeguarded India’s security. Consequently, in 1858, the responsibility for managing the British embassy in Tehran was transferred to the India Office.During the early decades of the 20th century, when Germany sought to establish a foothold in West Asia, Iran’s significance was again heightened as it provided a barrier against German ambitions in India. Simultaneously, British rule over the southern coast of the Persian Gulf, which lasted from 1820 to 1971, created a historical context where the Persian Gulf’s waterways and northern and southern territories consistently held a special place in British foreign policy.Calcutta (now Kolkata) managed the vast southern coastline in the Persian Gulf until 1947, and Indian troops were dispatched to Iran from the city from 1908 onwards for projects involving the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. We can still observe the lasting impact of the decades of Indian presence in various cities of Khuzestan province and their co-existence with Iranian people.If we assume a scenario where Israel and the US achieve their goals and force Iran to surrender or face collapse, the extensive military presence of the two countries and their dominance over the region’s oil and gas reserves would seriously alter the regional order and lead to a new era of colonial dominance in the 21st century. It should also be noted that over the past few weeks, several military infrastructure and strategic sites within countries in the southern periphery of the Persian Gulf have been destroyed.A large number of US naval, air and ground forces are also stationed in this region and surrounding areas, suggesting a potential for long-term presence.In these conditions, it can be expected that the two countries are seeking both to exert control over Iran and the Persian Gulf and maintain a stronger presence in the western Indian Ocean region. Undoubtedly, this will challenge the “Pax India” prevailing in the region, which has maintained peace and stability in this part of the world for decades.Furthermore, if we look at the unfolding events more pessimistically, pressures on India could intensify from both the eastern and the western sides of the ocean, potentially threatening the sovereignty of this international power over this strategic region. The trade and tariff war initiated by the US to increase India and other countries’ economic dependence on the US and the key mediating role in this conflict, provided to several developing countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, could lead to India being sidelined as a rising global power and limit its capacity to play a more effective role on the international stage.Although political and geopolitical equations in the international system have undergone significant changes in recent centuries, global development trends clearly indicate a return to previous approaches, albeit in new forms. In this New Great Game, Iran can still serve as a buffer state, safeguarding India’s interests in its surrounding region.A historical geopolitical analysis of the current situation could encourage India to adopt a more pragmatic response to the crisis. Indeed, awareness of developments in Southwest Asia, combined with timely responses and proper positioning before these events unfold, could contribute to a brighter future for the Asian countries. To realise its long-standing potential for leadership in the global South, India needs to assume a more pragmatic approach.Mandana Tishehyar is a faculty member, Department of Asian Studies, ECO College, Allameh Tabataba’i University. She did her PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. She lives in Tehran.