Jeffrey Sachs and the old guard of developmental economics love the word "whim." It suggests that the friction between the United States and Iran is a product of personality or sudden impulse—a temporary madness that nations like India can simply sit out while waiting for the adults to return to the room. This is a comforting lie. It assumes the world is a series of isolated events rather than a hard-coded system of energy security and trade routes.
Calling the US-Iran conflict a "war of whim" isn't just reductive; it’s dangerous. It encourages a passive foreign policy that India can no longer afford. The "lazy consensus" says India should cling to the Cold War relic of non-alignment. I’ve watched diplomats waste decades polishing this trophy while the ground beneath them shifted. Non-alignment is not a strategy. It is the absence of one. Expanding on this topic, you can also read: The Erasure of the Voting Rights Act and the New Architecture of American Power.
The Myth of the Neutral Bystander
The argument for non-alignment rests on the idea that if you don't pick a side, you don't get hit. Ask any logistics manager at a major Indian oil firm about that theory. When the Strait of Hormuz tightens or Houthi rebels target shipping in the Red Sea, "neutrality" doesn't lower your insurance premiums.
India imports over 80% of its crude oil. A significant chunk of that flows through the very choke points that Iran and the US are wrestling over. To suggest that India should stay non-aligned is to suggest that India should have no say in the security of its own energy supply. You aren't being "principled" by staying out of the fray; you are being a hostage to fortune. Analysts at The Guardian have shared their thoughts on this matter.
Sachs argues that the US is the primary aggressor, driven by neoconservative ghosts. This ignores the structural reality of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its stated goal of regional hegemony. This isn't about "whims." It’s about two competing architectures for the Middle East. One side wants a globalized, predictable trade environment (even if they enforce it clumsily), and the other wants a revolutionary upheaval of the existing order.
India’s economy is built on the former.
The False Equivalence of Strategic Autonomy
Strategic autonomy is the buzzword that replaced non-alignment, but it’s often used as a cloak for indecision. In the boardrooms of Mumbai and the halls of Delhi, there is a fear that picking a side means losing "sovereignty."
I have seen this fear paralyze decision-making during critical trade negotiations. True sovereignty isn't the ability to say "no" to everyone; it's the power to choose the partnership that yields the highest ROI.
Consider the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). India wants to use Iran as a gateway to Central Asia and Russia, bypassing Pakistan. This is a smart, pragmatic move. However, the Sachs-style view suggests this can happen in a vacuum, ignoring that the viability of the Iranian port of Chabahar is directly tied to the level of heat between Washington and Tehran.
If India continues to play both sides without a clear preference, it ends up with the worst of both worlds:
- Secondary sanctions from the US that scare off private investment.
- Unreliable delivery from an Iranian regime that uses trade as a geopolitical weapon.
Why the "War of Whim" Narrative Fails
Sachs’s perspective is rooted in a post-WWII idealistic framework that treats states as rational actors who just need a good lecture on cooperation. It ignores the visceral, ideological drivers of the IRGC and the hard-nosed requirements of American maritime dominance.
If this were a war of whim, it would have ended when the administration changed. It didn't. The tension persists because the fundamental interests are diametrically opposed.
For India, the "People Also Ask" logic usually goes something like this: "Won't aligning with the US hurt India's relationship with the Global South?"
This is the wrong question. The Global South isn't a monolith, and it doesn't pay India's bills. India’s future is tied to high-tech transfers, semiconductor supply chains, and defense co-production. None of those things are coming from Tehran. They are coming from the West and its Indo-Pacific allies.
The Hidden Cost of Sitting Still
The downside to my contrarian approach is obvious: it invites friction. Aligning more closely with a US-led security framework in West Asia would complicate India's ties with Iran and potentially Russia. It might even lead to short-term spikes in energy costs if Tehran retaliates.
But the cost of sitting still is higher. It’s the cost of being a secondary power that reacts to the world instead of shaping it. When the US and Iran eventually reach a new equilibrium—or a total rupture—India will be handed a bill it had no part in Negotiating.
Stop Asking for Permission to Lead
India is currently the fastest-growing major economy. It is no longer the fragile state of 1961 that needed the Non-Aligned Movement for protection.
The "whim" narrative infantilizes the conflict. It suggests that if everyone just calmed down, we could go back to business as usual. Business as usual is dead. The new reality is a fractured world where "neutrality" is seen as a lack of skin in the game.
India needs to stop acting like a regional power and start acting like a global one. That means moving past the Sachs doctrine. It means recognizing that the US-Iran conflict is a structural reality that requires a side to be taken—not because the US is perfect, but because the alternative is a chaotic maritime environment that will choke India's growth.
The era of the polite bystander is over. If you aren't at the table helping to define the security architecture of the Middle East, you are on the menu.
Stop clinging to the ghost of non-alignment. It won't keep the lights on in Delhi. Only power, and the courage to use it, will do that.
