Indian analyst to Pars Today: India's muted response to Dena sinking exposes limits of strategic autonomy against U.S

Pars Today – Indian analyst Ranjan Solomon argues that the sinking of the Iranian destroyer IRIS Dena was far more than a military incident, describing it as a symbol of the continued dominance of major powers and the growing challenges facing the international order.

In this exclusive interview with Pars Today, Solomon examines the political, geopolitical, and media dimensions of the sinking of IRIS Dena and its implications for the international system. He argues that the incident raises important questions about unilateralism, the credibility of the so-called rules-based international order, the role of Western media narratives, and the limits of India’s strategic autonomy under geopolitical pressure. He also assesses the broader implications of the episode for the Global South, Iran–India relations, and the United States’ standing in global public opinion.

The following is the full text of the interview:

Pars Today- The sinking of the Iranian destroyer “Dena” by a U.S. submarine, especially after its return from the international naval exercise in India, carries a heavy political message. What kind of political and symbolic message did it have for global public opinion, particularly for countries in the Global South?

The sinking of the Iranian destroyer IRIS Dena carried consequences far beyond the military sphere. Politically and symbolically, the incident was interpreted by many countries in the Global South as a demonstration of how major powers continue to exercise military dominance even in international waters and outside formally declared war zones. The fact that the vessel had just returned from multinational naval exercises in India added a deeper geopolitical dimension. It suggested that participation in international diplomacy and military cooperation does not necessarily protect non-Western states from coercive action when larger strategic rivalries are involved.

For many societies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the attack revived historical memories of interventionism, unequal sovereignty, and selective applications of international law. Countries that emerged from colonialism remain sensitive to actions that appear to reinforce the idea that some powers reserve for themselves the right to act militarily beyond universally accepted norms of accountability. In this sense, the Dena incident was viewed not only as an attack on Iran, but also as a warning to independent regional actors attempting to pursue autonomous foreign policies outside Western strategic frameworks.

The symbolism became even stronger because Iran has increasingly positioned itself as part of a broader Global South resistance to unilateralism and sanctions-based diplomacy. The destruction of an Iranian vessel in international waters therefore resonated politically among nations already critical of what they perceive as the militarization of global order by dominant powers.

The episode also damaged the credibility of the so-called “rules-based international order.” Many observers asked a fundamental question: if international waters are no longer safe from unilateral military escalation, then whose rules actually govern the global system? For much of the Global South, the answer increasingly appears to depend not on international law itself, but on the unequal distribution of military and political power.

Pars Today- Why did Western media frame chose to be simplistic and categorise this attack merely as a “military escalation.” On the other hand, many in Asia and the Global South emphasized the martyrdom of the Iranian sailors and the human dimension of the incident? The people and international community as a whole must differentiate the assault as one that is a broader media war and the Western monopoly over global narratives?

The contrasting media responses reflect deeper ideological and geopolitical divides within the global information system. Much of Western media coverage approached the sinking of the Dena primarily through the framework of military strategy, deterrence, escalation management, and geopolitical competition. In that discourse, human suffering is often subordinated to technical language about security calculations and strategic balance.

In contrast, media outlets and public opinion across parts of Asia, West Asia, Africa, and Latin America focused more strongly on the human consequences of the attack. The deaths of Iranian sailors were not viewed merely as operational losses in a strategic confrontation, but as human beings whose lives became casualties of an increasingly militarized international order. In many societies shaped by histories of colonialism, invasion, sanctions, or occupation, war is experienced not as an abstract geopolitical exercise but as lived human trauma.

This difference reflects more than editorial preference. It reveals the enduring imbalance in global narrative power. Western media institutions still dominate much of the international information landscape and therefore possess enormous influence in defining the language through which conflicts are interpreted. Terms such as “surgical strike,” “escalation,” or “deterrence” often depoliticize violence and reduce human tragedies to strategic terminology.

At the same time, alternative media networks across the Global South are increasingly challenging this monopoly. Countries and societies that have historically experienced foreign intervention are becoming less willing to accept Western framings as politically neutral or morally objective. The Dena incident therefore became part of a broader struggle over who controls global narratives and whose suffering receives international recognition.

For many in the Global South, emphasizing the martyrdom of the Iranian sailors was also an assertion of moral perspective against a media culture that often normalizes violence when carried out by powerful states. The debate was therefore not only about journalism, but about competing visions of justice, memory, and political legitimacy in world affairs.

Pars Today- Some analysts believe the objective of this attack was not solely military; rather, the United States sought to expand its pressure campaign and psychological warfare against Iran from the Persian Gulf into international waters. What is your assessment? And why could this U.S. action be considered a strategic mistake for Washington?

It is entirely plausible that the attack carried not only military objectives but also psychological and political ones. Modern warfare increasingly operates through signalling, intimidation, and narrative projection as much as through battlefield outcomes. By targeting an Iranian vessel beyond the immediate Persian Gulf theatre, Washington may have sought to communicate that Iran’s strategic reach remains vulnerable even in wider international spaces.

Such actions are often intended to reinforce deterrence and project dominance. However, history repeatedly shows that excessive reliance on coercive power can produce consequences opposite to those intended. Rather than isolating Iran, the incident may strengthen sympathy for Tehran among populations and governments already critical of Western interventionism and double standards in international affairs.

The attack also risks damaging America’s broader international credibility. The United States frequently presents itself as a defender of global order, maritime stability, and international law. Yet when military force appears to be exercised unilaterally in international waters, many countries perceive a contradiction between Washington’s stated principles and its strategic behavior. This weakens the moral authority upon which American global leadership partly depends.

Strategically, the incident may also accelerate closer political and military coordination among states seeking alternatives to U.S.-dominated security structures. Countries already skeptical of American unilateralism may increasingly deepen cooperation with one another in order to reduce vulnerability to Western pressure.

Another important factor is psychological perception. Military superiority does not automatically produce political legitimacy. In many parts of the Global South, overwhelming military force used against weaker or sanctioned states often generates resentment rather than respect. The Dena incident may therefore have strengthened anti-American sentiment far beyond Iran itself.

This is why the attack could ultimately become a strategic mistake for Washington. Tactical military actions can sometimes produce long-term geopolitical costs by undermining trust, increasing resistance, and reinforcing the perception that the international system operates according to unequal rules imposed by power rather than genuine international consensus.

Pars Today- Why was India’s response cautious and subdued, despite its claims of strategic autonomy? The response is viewed by many observers as lacking in substance and political assertion? The question doing the rounds is: Is New Delhi constrained by geopolitical considerations and U.S. influence?

India’s cautious response to the sinking of the Iranian destroyer IRIS Dena generated criticism because New Delhi has long presented itself as an independent global actor committed to strategic autonomy. Since the era of Jawaharlal Nehru and the Non-Aligned Movement, India cultivated an image rooted in anti-colonial solidarity, sovereign diplomacy, and resistance to great-power domination.

However, the Dena incident exposed the growing contradiction between India’s traditional diplomatic identity and its present geopolitical alignments. The Iranian vessel had just participated in naval exercises hosted by India, making the subsequent attack politically significant for New Delhi. Many observers expected a stronger response, whether through diplomatic condemnation, calls for accountability, or a clearer defense of maritime stability and international law.

Instead, India adopted a restrained posture that carefully avoided direct criticism of Washington. This caution reflects the changing realities of India’s foreign policy. Over the last two decades, India’s relationship with the United States has expanded dramatically through defense agreements, intelligence cooperation, arms purchases, Indo-Pacific initiatives, and strategic coordination aimed largely at balancing China.

While India continues to speak the language of multipolarity and independent diplomacy, its increasing integration into Western strategic frameworks has created visible constraints. For many observers across the Global South, New Delhi’s muted response suggested that its room for independent manoeuvre is narrowing whenever direct U.S. strategic interests are involved.

The issue is particularly sensitive because India historically maintained close ties with Iran despite Western pressure. Iran was central to India’s energy security and regional connectivity ambitions, especially through the Chabahar Port project. Yet U.S. sanctions pressure and India’s growing dependence on Western economic and military partnerships have steadily reduced the space for openly independent engagement with Tehran.

The Dena incident therefore became more than a naval confrontation. It evolved into a broader political test of whether India’s strategic autonomy remains substantive or largely rhetorical in moments of geopolitical pressure. For many across Asia, Africa, and West Asia, India’s silence appeared less like neutrality and more like the hesitation of a regional power constrained by the realities of American influence.

Long after the smoke over the Indian Ocean disappears, the political meaning of the Dena incident will remain. For many across the Global South, the question is no longer whether power dominates the international system - it is whether humanity can still build a world where law restrains power before power destroys law itself.

SD

The views, analyses, and opinions expressed in this interview are solely those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position, policies, or views of Pars Today.