Measured criticism from a former top diplomat has sharpened debate over New Delhi’s response to the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, with Shivshankar Menon arguing that prolonged official silence risks eroding the country’s influence in global affairs.Menon, who served as Foreign Secretary and later National Security Adviser, said the government’s restrained response to Khamenei’s killing and the wider escalation in West Asia reflects a pattern of diplomatic reticence rather than a deliberate strategy. According to him, avoiding clear public positions on major international crises may ultimately diminish the credibility of the country’s voice on the world stage.
Khamenei, who led the Islamic Republic of Iran for nearly four decades, was killed on 28 February during a large-scale military campaign involving the United States and Israel targeting Iranian military and strategic sites. The strikes triggered a wave of retaliatory attacks across the region and intensified fears of a broader confrontation in West Asia.
Speaking about the government’s response, Menon said remaining silent after the killing of a recognised head of state raises questions about diplomatic consistency and political judgement. He noted that when such developments affect national interests—particularly energy security, trade flows and regional stability—silence cannot easily be defended as strategic caution.
His remarks have come amid growing scrutiny of the government’s handling of the crisis. Political figures and analysts have pointed to the delay before any formal gesture of condolence was made to Tehran. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri later signed a condolence book at the Iranian embassy in New Delhi on behalf of the government, but critics argued the response appeared subdued given the scale of the regional upheaval.
Menon also drew comparisons with earlier periods of foreign policy decision-making, noting that previous governments had taken explicit positions on major international conflicts even when the geopolitical context was complex. For him, the absence of a clear statement on Khamenei’s assassination signals a broader diplomatic pattern in which public messaging is avoided even when events have direct consequences for the country’s interests.
West Asia remains a region of deep strategic importance. Large energy imports, maritime trade routes and a sizeable expatriate workforce in Gulf countries mean that political upheaval there can quickly affect economic stability. Analysts say disruptions linked to the confrontation have already pushed crude prices above the $100-per-barrel mark at various points as shipping and production risks intensified across the Persian Gulf.
Economic concerns have reinforced the argument that developments in the region cannot be treated as distant geopolitical disputes. Oil imports account for a major share of domestic energy consumption, while fertiliser supplies and petrochemical feedstocks also depend heavily on Middle Eastern producers. Diplomatic signalling in such circumstances, observers say, often serves to reassure partners while protecting economic interests.
The killing of Khamenei also triggered a rapid political transition inside Iran. The country’s Assembly of Experts moved swiftly to appoint Mojtaba Khamenei, the slain leader’s son, as the new Supreme Leader. The decision marked a rare hereditary-style transfer of authority in the republic’s clerical system and has drawn close scrutiny from regional governments and foreign policy analysts assessing its implications for Iran’s strategic direction.
Within Iran, authorities declared an extended period of national mourning while security institutions vowed retaliation for the air strikes. The conflict widened as Iran launched missile and drone attacks against targets linked to United States interests across the Gulf, raising fears of a prolonged regional war.
Diplomatic responses around the world have varied widely. Some governments condemned the assassination as a violation of international norms, while others framed the strikes as part of efforts to curb Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities. The divided reaction reflects the broader geopolitical fault lines that have defined relations with Tehran for decades.
At home, the government has maintained that its approach aims to encourage de-escalation and dialogue while preserving balanced relations across West Asia. Officials have repeatedly emphasised the need for restraint from all parties and warned that an expanded conflict would threaten regional stability and global economic security.
Yet the restrained tone has not quieted debate among diplomats and foreign policy scholars. Menon’s intervention has drawn particular attention because of his long involvement in shaping strategic policy, including negotiations on nuclear cooperation and regional security issues during his tenure in government.
For some analysts, the disagreement reflects a broader question about how rising powers should position themselves in a turbulent international environment. A more assertive diplomatic stance could signal confidence and leadership, while silence or neutrality may be intended to preserve strategic flexibility among competing partners.