India’s Strategic Silence Amid Trump’s New Geopolitical Shockwaves

The new year has begun with little respite from the geopolitical upheaval triggered by the Trump administration, as Washington rolls out a series of aggressive and unilateral actions across multiple regions. From Venezuela and Iran to Russia-linked trade and even Greenland, the expanding arc of U.S. pressure is beginning to test India’s strategic choices — and expose the costs of New Delhi’s increasingly cautious diplomacy.

A renewed phase of U.S. unilateralism

The Trump administration has opened 2026 with a sharp escalation in its use of coercive tools — military action, sanctions and tariff threats — to reshape global alignments. Its controversial intervention in Venezuela, followed by threats of similar regime-changing operations elsewhere in South America, has drawn international criticism for undermining sovereignty and international law.

Simultaneously, Washington has revived rhetoric around annexing Greenland, unsettling European allies, while the U.S. Congress is preparing to debate a sweeping new law proposing tariffs of up to 500% on countries that continue purchasing oil or uranium from Russia. If enacted, the measure would dramatically raise the stakes for major energy importers like India.

Iran, tariffs and pressure on India’s interests

Tensions have also sharpened over Iran. The U.S. has intensified sanctions and issued threats of military action in response to Tehran’s crackdown on street protests. In a social media post, former President Donald Trump announced plans to impose an additional 25% tariff on trade with any country doing business with Iran.

For India, the implications are immediate. Washington is pressing New Delhi to wind down its presence at the strategically vital Chabahar port — a project where India has invested billions of dollars to secure access to Afghanistan and Central Asia while bypassing Pakistan. Further reductions in India-Iran trade are also reportedly under consideration, recalling earlier periods when New Delhi scaled back ties under U.S. pressure.

New Delhi’s muted responses

Against this backdrop, India’s official reactions have been notably restrained. The Ministry of External Affairs has expressed “deep concern” over developments in Venezuela, but has stopped short of explicitly naming or criticising the United States for actions widely described as violations of international law.

No statements have been issued on U.S. threats against other Latin American countries such as Cuba or Colombia, possibly reflecting India’s assessment that these regions fall outside its immediate strategic neighbourhood. On Iran — a close neighbour with long-standing civilisational and economic ties — the silence has been even more striking. While travel advisories have been issued and evacuation plans prepared for Indian nationals, New Delhi has avoided commenting on both the protests and Washington’s threats of strikes and punitive tariffs.

The calculations behind strategic restraint

Government officials privately argue that restraint is a matter of pragmatism. After a difficult year in India–U.S. relations, marked by stalled negotiations on a bilateral trade agreement, there is hope that ties may stabilise. The U.S. Ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, has spoken optimistically about reviving trade talks and about India’s prospective inclusion in the U.S.-led high-technology partnership dubbed ‘Pax Silica’.

From this perspective, officials suggest that publicly challenging Washington now could risk another downturn in relations, with little tangible gain for India.

The economic and diplomatic costs of silence

However, critics argue that each new U.S. threat carries real consequences for ordinary Indians and the broader economy. Punitive tariffs linked to Russian oil purchases, curbs on Iran trade, and pressure on overseas infrastructure investments directly affect energy security, export competitiveness and long-term strategic autonomy.

There are reputational costs as well. As India prepares to host the BRICS+ Summit later this year, its reluctance to speak up on major violations of international norms could complicate ties with partners who view strategic autonomy as more than a rhetorical commitment.

Lessons from the past and the road ahead

India’s experience in 2019 — when it halted imports of Iranian and Venezuelan oil under U.S. sanctions pressure — offers a cautionary lesson. Compliance did not insulate New Delhi from future pressures, nor did it secure lasting economic or diplomatic concessions.

As U.S. unilateralism intensifies, the debate within India is sharpening: whether continued appeasement of a global power can safeguard national interests, or whether a clearer assertion of strategic autonomy is required. For a country that seeks a larger global role, the answer may define not just its foreign policy posture in 2026, but the credibility of its long-standing claim to independent decision-making on the world stage.