Once Iran achieves a semblance of symbolic retaliation, both parties could begin exploring diplomatic exit routes.
Suri also dismissed optimistic takes like President Trump’s tweet suggesting a quick resolution, arguing that deeply entrenched geopolitical issues demand long-term negotiations—not social media optimism.He raised a critical concern about the Strait of Hormuz, warning that if Iran is cornered into desperation, it may resort to blocking the key oil shipping route—a move that could send shockwaves through global markets, especially given India’s limited strategic oil reserves.
This is the edited excerpt of the interview.
Q: After looking at the last four days flow of news, does it look like we have a prolonged conflict on our hands?
A: I don’t think so. I frankly, don’t think that Iran can sustain a prolonged conflict, considering the rate at which its missile delivery capabilities, its energy facilities, are being degraded. In a funny way, even though Israel is a small country, it’s an unequal contest, because Israel is a technological superpower. It is the military superpower in the region, and it enjoys the unlimited backing of the Americans.
There are limitations within which the Iranians will be operating and I wouldn’t be surprised in a couple of days time, once Iran has had the what the psychological satisfaction, or the moral satisfaction, that they have landed a couple of blows that people start looking at pathways out of the current situation.
Q: Will it go to a point where the Israelis, or even the Middle East looks for a change in the regime in Iran? Will that be the way this will end? Will it go that bad?
A: Hard to say at this point of time. Whatever chatter I am picking up, even Iranians who are disgruntled against the regime for very valid reasons, whether within Iran or outside Iran, seem to at this point, feel that what Israel is doing is attacking Iran, not just the regime. So people are kind of tending to get united behind the country, rather than just the regime that they may not particularly like. So that is a question mark.
There is no love lost for the Iranian regime in the Arab world, I must say, not just with Israel. They have been guilty of interfering quite blatantly in the affairs of neighbouring countries, starting, of course, with Iraq, but then Syria and Lebanon and Bahrain and the Saudis have their own angst, but I don’t think we are at that regime’s change moment.
Q: How seriously should we take the US President’s tweet that talks are happening and peace will come, the war will end. Are you expecting a quick end, as in a couple of days?
A: Should we go by the past record of the President’s tweets and draw our conclusions from that – I think we have all learned that the Ukraine conflict wasn’t solved in 24 hours, and he claims to have resolved India, Pakistan, and certainly he thought he would resolve the long festering issues of the Middle East. The reality is that these are very complex issues, and they need months and months of fine negotiations by experts to try and come to some kind of a resolution.
On your particular question, I would take President Trump’s tweets with a very large spoon of salt. The larger issue, perhaps for a channel like yours, is that if Iran is driven to a point of desperation, and it has in the past, threatened that it could block the Strait of Hormuz, then we really need to look at what the consequences could be, because to my mind, that is the single biggest regional and global ramification that could emerge out of this.
Q: That was going to be my next question to you. Do you think Iran would threaten that and even actually execute that threat? Do things get that bad?
A: It is their extreme option. They have done it once before during the Iraq-Iran war. The consequences today could be much worse. Between the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Qataris and the Emiratis, they ship about 21 million barrels a day out of these trade reformers. That’s 1/3 of global sea bound oil supplies. And so some analysts say that, should Iran take that extreme step? And it is a doable step.
When you look at the shipping channel that takes you through the Strait of Hormuz that’s barely three kilometres, not even three kilometres wide, so you can knock out a couple of tankers and effectively block the channel for a while.
That would really send shock waves through the global system. It would also make us painfully aware that even today, after our strategic petroleum reserves in Vishakhapatnam, in Mangalore and Padur, our own oil reserves today, the strategic petroleum reserves are, what barely 10 days requirement for us so that really is an extreme situation. I just hope that the Iranians are not pushed to a point where they feel that that’s the only option left for them.
Q: That is the side the US is also likely to take. One of the President’s key promises was to keep crude prices down, so it’s clear they will work in that direction. But regardless, your base case now is that this won’t be a prolonged conflict because Iran can’t afford it. Is that a significant reassurance you’re offering to the market?
A: Iran’s capacity to sustain a long distance conflict of this nature, given the technologies that today are available, the means that are available to Israel to keep degrading Iran’s energy infrastructure, keep degrading its missile capabilities, and combined with the fact that Israel itself has a very robust anti-missile defence system.
If you look at the hundreds of missiles that Iran has fired at Israel and see how many managed to penetrate its air defences, it’s a fairly small number, and Israel would probably feel that it can absorb that much of the pain. But for Iran, the situation continues to become more and more grave, and that’s what I feel, that it would be hard beyond the next three or four days for Iran to be in a position where it can deliver major blows to Israel.
That is why I say that both sides will be looking for a pathway out at that point of time. And the Israelis, curiously, have also acknowledged that they don’t have the capacity to knock out Iran’s nuclear capacity. They have struck Natanz, but they can’t do very much about Fordow. So it’s not as if Israel will be able to claim victory that I have destroyed Iran’s nuclear programme.
Q: Are there any, compelling reasons why Israel also will want to just end was the whole idea just to give Iran a warning that they should not continue to help Hamas or any of the other outfits. Was it a limited attack, even from Israel’s point of view?
A: There should be a lasting, enduring lesson for Israel somewhere in all of this that, it’s easier to start wars than to achieve objectives. I think Gaza is a stark reminder that after 20 months, Israel still hasn’t been able to destroy Hamas. You can win battles on the battlefield, but whether you win the wars, is the moot point here. And I don’t think Israel achieves its objective of destroying Iran’s nuclear programme. That’s why the P5+1 nuclear agreement was so important, which was done during the Obama government, that it put caps on Iran’s nuclear programme, which were verifiable.
Then Trump comes in, Trump 1.0 and tears up the agreement and leaves the Iranians free to start increasing beyond those gaps, their enrichment programme, and puts you in the situation that you are in today. There is a room for diplomacy to achieve objectives that you may not be able to achieve through war. And you have done the war and you will again, probably have to fall back on diplomacy to take you forward.
Catch all the live updates from the Israel Iran war
