From Escalation to Ceasefire: Ambassador Navtej Sarna on the Iran-Israel-U.S. Crisis and the Geopolitics of The Middle East

Audio Option is available to paid subscribers. Upgrade your plan

Audio version only for premium members

It has been over a month since Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, a days-long standoff military campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear, military, and energy infrastructure, in June. Israel’s strikes killed several top Iranian military leaders and scientists. Iran responded with “True Promise 3,” targeting Israeli military bases and cities. Amidst the Israel-Iran exchanges, the United States conducted an unprecedented bombing of Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, with Iran limiting its retaliation to a telegraphed attack on Al-Udeid airbase. While the US enforced a ceasefire between all parties, the prospect of resumed nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran remain uncertain. Iran has since moved closer to limiting cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and potentially withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Both Israeli and Iranian actions, along with the American intervention, have evidently deeply shaken the global non-proliferation framework.

India’s World sat down with Ambassador Navtej Sarna a former Indian Foreign Service officer, author, and one of India’s most experienced diplomats. He served as India’s Ambassador to the U.S., High Commissioner to the U.K., and Ambassador to Israel. In this conversation recorded on June 30th, 2025, Amb. Sarna unpacks the aftermath of the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and what it means for diplomacy, deterrence, and the future of global non-proliferation.

Ambassador Sarna, with active hostilities now behind us and a ceasefire in place, how do you interpret the U.S. decision to join Israel’s military campaign and strike Iran’s nuclear facilities? Was it a calibrated deterrent or a sign of broader re-engagement by Washington in West Asia?

Amb. Sarna: I’m not entirely sure the hostilities are truly over. Yes, there’s a ceasefire, but we don’t know how long it will last. Once military action of this scale takes place, there’s always the possibility that Israel or the U.S. may return to it. The damage done is still unclear.

Iran’s long-term response—whether it resumes or rethinks its nuclear programme—is also uncertain. So I wouldn’t call this a permanent resolution.

As for why the strikes happened—it was a war of choice launched by Prime Minister Netanyahu. He sensed a favourable window. Iran’s proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—had been weakened after October 7, and Syria’s Assad was ousted. Netanyahu saw this as the right time to act. He has long portrayed Iran’s nuclear programme as an existential threat to Israel.

Previous U.S. presidents had avoided joining Israel in striking Iran. Even during the Iraq War, Netanyahu had hoped Iran would be included, but that didn’t happen.

Now, with President Trump in office, a leader who had already torn up the first treaty with Iran, Netanyahu made a calculated bet. He assumed that after Israel’s initial strikes, Trump would step in and frame the move as being in America’s best interest. That allowed him to project strength without committing to a prolonged conflict. Trump had always maintained he didn’t want to get dragged into another Middle Eastern war. He had criticised his predecessors for doing just that. Yet, despite divisions within his own camp—and a less alarmist intelligence assessment issued in March—he went ahead. It was a political gamble, one shaped heavily by Netanyahu’s pressure.

While the U.S. described its strike as a “one-off,” the timing and intensity raised important questions. What factors do you think ultimately drove the decision to act—intelligence, alliance management, or political signalling?

Amb. Sarna: I think this was a compromise President Trump made between his foreign policy posture and his domestic compulsions. He had campaigned on not getting America enmeshed in “endless wars.” But he also wanted to show that American power could still prevail decisively when needed.

Framing the strike as a one-off allowed him to do both. It projected strength, delivered what he could claim as a quick victory, and helped silence internal dissent—especially from voices in his own camp who were wary of deeper involvement. He could present the operation as swift, decisive, and complete.

That’s also why the ceasefire was so important to him. It fit neatly into the narrative that the mission had been accomplished. He was visibly angry when there were violations. In his view, Iran’s nuclear programme had been, as he put it, “obliterated.” He didn’t see the ceasefire as temporary—he believed the objective had been achieved and the conflict closed.

' This article is only available to subscribers of India's World. Already a subscriber? Log in

Subscribe to India’s World to read more.

Login or Register To Unlock The Content!

Latest Stories

Related Analysis