Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1568239951-1-scaled

Where does Iran stand in the India-China regional rivalry?

Iran is aware of the differences and rivalries between New Delhi and Beijing. Accordingly, Iran will not put all its eggs in the Chinese basket.

Analysis | Middle East

The possible strategic agreement between Iran and China presents concerns not only for the United States, but also for one of the premier powers of the Asian continent: India.

On a visit to Tehran in May 2016, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed a memorandum of understanding with Tehran in a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani to develop the strategic Iranian seaport of Chabahar.

Chabahar, located in southeastern Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan on the Sea of Oman serves as Iran’s only oceanic port and its closest to international waters in the Indian Ocean. The port consists of two nodes (terminals), each of which has five berths built in an area of 485 hectares.

The $1.6 billion memorandum of understanding between Iran and India was also signed to build the Chabahar-Zahedan railway, which was slated to link India to Afghanistan, as well as Central Asia, through Iran. Needless to say, Pakistan has for a long time denied India to use its soil as a transit route.

India saw signing the Chabahar agreement with Iran as a counterbalance to China’s action in signing an agreement with Pakistan to develop Gwadar port in 2015. The Gwadar port is situated only 350 km by land and 140 km by sea from the port of Chabahar.

But more than four years after signing the Tehran-New Delhi memorandum, the Chabahar development project has seen no progress even as the news of a 25-year Iran-China strategic partnership arrived recently.

Much to New Delhi’s dismay, on July 16, Kheirollah Khademi, Iran's Deputy Minister of Roads and Urban Development, confirmed the earlier reports that India had been dropped from the Chabahar-Zahedan railway project, citing funding delays.

Although Iranian officials have not cited the strategic agreement with China as a reason for excluding India from the Chabahar project, political commentators are well aware of the increasing tensions and rivalry between India and China.

It seems that the main reason why Iran dropped India from the Chabahar-Zahedan project was exactly what has been officially stated by the Iranian officials — that India’s delay in fulfilling its obligations to finance the project, as well as the country's behavior in the aftermath of Trump’s 2018 pullout from the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposition of unprecedented sanctions. New Delhi, which has built warmer relations with Washington, especially during Modi era, seems to have favored to be part of Donald Trump’s maximum pressure campaign against Tehran.

Even so, in November 2018, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo officially announced that the Chabahar port project would be exempted from the U.S. sanctions.

Furthermore, India halted its oil purchases from Iran in April 2019 and preferred to abide by the U.S. anti-Iran campaign. By contrast, China has remained the biggest buyer of Iran’s crude oil, and has been regularly praised for its support by the Iranian officials.

What is Iran’s position?

Why did Iran react this way to India’s behavior? Commentators have provided two major answers: some argue that Iran, after waiting patiently for too long, came to the conclusion to decisively call off the joint project with New Delhi and announce that it will carry it out itself. Those who favor this argument also claim that Iran has been in talks with China over the Chabahar-Zahedan railway project, and that the Chinese have expressed interest in developing the important Iranian port as well as the railway.

At the same time, the China-India rivalry, as well as Beijing's attempts to limit India's geopolitical ambitions could be driving China’s interest in joining the Chabahar port project. China's presence in Chabahar not only eliminates the risk of Iran’s port rivaling the Pakistani port, and gives control of both ports to China, but also, it denies India access to this oceanic port, and more importantly, to Afghanistan and Central Asia.

But the second analysis focuses on Iran's double game: Iran is aware of the differences and rivalries between New Delhi and Beijing. Accordingly, Iran will not put all its eggs in the Chinese basket and will not fully give the Chabahar port development project to China. At least, it hasn’t so far.

In line with this explanation, Saeed Rasouli, the head of Iranian railways, said on July 10, 2020 about excluding India from the railway project that "based on the decision of the authorities, it is planned to allocate 300 million euros from the government budget to implement this project." This means that Iran had not still said it would take the project from India to China.

However, one has to bear it in mind that Iran's anger with India over its adherence to U.S. anti-Iranian policies is still a factor.

"I never thought that an independent country like India would be willing to follow the United States‘ footsteps and refuse to buy oil from us," said Ishaq Jahangiri, Iran's first vice president, on December 17, 2019.

In conclusion, Iran may have wanted to warn India that if its reluctance continued, it would no longer retain its role in Chabahar project, and instead Tehran would invite greater Chinese involvement. India certainly would not welcome this, as it could add to its geopolitical constraints in the region at a time when tensions with China and Pakistan have increased significantly.


Analysis | Middle East
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.