The recent confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States of America in the Middle East highlights a fundamental reality: geography continues to shape strategic outcomes despite rapid advances in military technology.
Iran’s geography provides significant defensive advantages. Covering a territory nearly as large as Alaska and home to nearly 90 million people, the country presents formidable challenges to any external power contemplating large-scale military operations. Equally important is Iran’s extensive coastline along the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Stretching over 1,800 km, it offers numerous locations from which Tehran can deploy missiles, drones, naval mines, submarines, and fast attack craft.
At the centre of Iran’s strategic calculus lies the Strait of Hormuz, arguably the world’s most important energy choke point. Its physical characteristics make it particularly vulnerable. At its narrowest point, it spans only a few dozen kilometers; designated shipping lanes are even narrower. Iran controls the northern shoreline and occupies strategically significant islands such as Qeshm, Hormuz, and Abu Musa, giving it effective oversight of maritime traffic.
Rather than seeking outright naval dominance against the US navy, Tehran focuses on disruption and uncertainty. The objective is not necessarily to close the Strait of Hormuz entirely but to raise the risks and costs associated with commercial shipping. The recent tensions demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach. Iranian threats and selective action against maritime traffic contributed to disruptions in shipping patterns and heightened volatility in global energy markets.
This strategy has deep historical roots. During the Tanker War of the 1980s, Iran targeted commercial shipping in the Gulf, compelling the US to undertake escort operations and maritime security missions. Although Washington successfully
protected shipping and damaged Iranian naval assets during Operation Praying Mantis, the challenge posed by mines and dispersed asymmetric threats persisted.
Iran’s approach reflects broader changes in contemporary warfare. Increasingly, weaker powers seek leverage through disruption, attrition, and economic pressure rather than decisive military victories. Low-cost drones, missiles, mines, and small maritime platforms can force adversaries to expend far more expensive defensive resources. This creates an unfavourable cost-exchange ratio that can erode the advantages enjoyed by stronger militaries.
For India, these developments carry significant implications. India imports approximately 85%–90% of its crude oil requirements, with a substantial share originating from Gulf producers. Much of this energy supply transits through the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption in that region adversely affects fuel prices, inflation, fertiliser production, and overall economic growth.
The strategic response must focus on resilience. Strengthening strategic petroleum reserves, accelerating renewable energy adoption, expanding domestic exploration, and diversifying supply chains should be key priorities. Equally important is sustained diplomatic engagement with Iran, Gulf monarchies, and other regional stakeholders to reduce tensions.
As competition intensifies across the Indo-Pacific, the Indian navy’s role in protecting sea lines of communication will become increasingly important. Enhanced maritime domain awareness, stronger naval capabilities, and closer cooperation with partners in the Indo-Pacific can help safeguard critical trade routes and energy supplies.
Iran’s experience also offers lessons for India’s security environment. Whether in the Indian Ocean or along the Himalayan frontier, geography will continue to shape strategic outcomes. Investments in drones, missiles, surveillance systems, and indigenous anti-access capabilities need to be increasingly aligned with the evolving character of warfare.
Harsh V. Pant is Vice-President for Studies and Foreign Policy, Observer Research Foundation