Asia Walks a Diplomatic Tightrope as Gulf Conflict Escalates
4 March 2026
More lives continue to be lost as the war in the Gulf entered its fourth day.
On Saturday, February 28, Israel launched a missile strike on Tehran in what it described as a “preventive attack” against Iran. One strike reportedly hit near the compound of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Hours later, it was revealed that the operation had been coordinated with Washington. US President Donald Trump confirmed that the United States had coordinated major combat operations in Iran. The missions were codenamed “Epic Fury” (US) and “Roaring Lion” (Israel).
In a press conference, Trump said the strikes were aimed at curbing Iran’s alleged plans to attack the United States.
“Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world,” he said.
“Iran is the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror… It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I’ll say it again: They can never have a nuclear weapon,” he continued.
Later in the day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined Israel’s justification for the attack, saying “the aim of the operation is to put an end to the threat from the Ayatollah regime in Iran,” which he described as an “oppressor.”
He added, “For 47 years, the regime in Iran has called for death to Israel, death to America… It spread a vast network of terror across the entire world. It invested enormous resources to develop atomic bombs and tens of thousands of missiles intended, as it defined it, to erase Israel from the map.”
Later that day, it was confirmed that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed in the strike.
In retaliation, Iran launched attacks against Israel as well as US assets across the Gulf, including Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The escalating conflict in the Gulf has forced Asian leaders into a difficult geopolitical balancing act. Across the continent, reactions range from sharp diplomatic condemnation to pragmatic silence, all driven by a shared anxiety over energy security and the safety of millions of citizens living in the crossfire.
Indonesia
Indonesia, despite its geographic distance from the Middle East, has found itself caught in the diplomatic crossfire.
Jakarta is carefully executing what analysts describe as a balancing strategy, managing its position as the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation while also honouring a significant new cooperation agreement with the Trump administration.
Just days before the strikes, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto pledged 8,000 troops to the US-led Board of Peace, a multinational stabilisation force intended to oversee security and reconstruction efforts in Gaza.
Domestic pressure has since intensified. As a predominantly Muslim nation, Indonesia faces strong public sentiment, with the Indonesian Ulema Council urging the government to withdraw from international security partnerships in protest of the attacks. The Iranian embassy in Jakarta has also called on Indonesia to formally condemn the US-Israel strikes.
Yet the Prabowo administration has so far avoided a direct diplomatic rupture with Washington. Instead, Jakarta has attempted to position itself as a neutral mediator. President Prabowo has even offered to travel to Tehran personally to help reopen dialogue.
By presenting itself as a bridge between the West and the Islamic world, Indonesia appears to be trying to balance domestic pro-Iran sentiment while preserving the economic and security agreements it has recently secured with the United States.
Malaysia
In Malaysia, the reaction to the US-Israeli strikes on Iran has been among the most vocal and condemnatory in the region.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim took the rare step of tabling an emergency motion in Parliament on March 2, 2026, where lawmakers from across the political spectrum displayed a historic show of unity to denounce the military action.
Anwar described the strikes as a "vile attempt" to sabotage ongoing peace negotiations brokered by Oman and openly branded the Western position as "hypocrisy." In a scathing rebuke, he stated that Malaysia could no longer "swallow" lectures on human rights from nations involved in unprovoked attacks on sovereign states. This bold diplomatic shift has seen Malaysia signal a move closer to Iran in trade and education, viewing its firm stance as a necessary display of solidarity despite domestic complexities regarding religious denominations.
Economically, the conflict presents a "complex paradox" for Malaysia. As an oil and natural gas exporter, the country could see a short-term boost in government revenue through Petronas due to surging global oil prices.
However, Economy Minister Akmal Nasrullah has warned that these gains are likely to be offset by the rising costs of imported refined petroleum and a general spike in maritime insurance premiums for the Strait of Hormuz, a route critical to 20% of global oil supply. For a trade-dependent nation like Malaysia, the primary fear is a prolonged regional war that weakens demand in major markets like China and the US, potentially leading to higher inflation and supply chain delays for essential electronic and industrial components.
The Philippines
For the Philippines, the conflict is viewed not through a geopolitical lens, but as a direct threat to its national economy and its people.
Manila has been a staunch US treaty ally and a friend to Israel, the Philippines is in a difficult political position, but its primary concern is the over 2.4 million Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) currently in the Gulf.
President Marcos Jr. has described the situation as an "economic fault line," as the country relies heavily on remittances from this region.
Following the reported death of a Filipina worker in the initial crossfire, the government has focused almost exclusively on a massive repatriation and protection effort.
Manila is walking a tightrope, supporting the security concerns of its allies while desperately trying to ensure that its neutral workforce is not targeted by Iranian retaliatory strikes on Gulf states like the UAE and Qatar.
India
The official reaction from India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) was initially a call for "maximum restraint," echoing the sentiments of other Asian powers. However, India’s position is unique due to the presence of nearly 10 million Indian nationals living and working in the Gulf region.
The government has expressed "grave anxiety" over the safety of this massive diaspora, especially following reports that some Indian nationals have already been killed or gone missing due to retaliatory strikes on merchant shipping and urban centers in the UAE and Kuwait. To manage this, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has engaged in intense "telephone diplomacy," speaking with leaders in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Israel.
While India has urged a return to "dialogue and diplomacy," critics and opposition leaders have pointed to a perceived tilt toward the US-Israel axis. This sentiment was fueled by the fact that PM Modi was on an official visit to Israel just 48 hours before the strikes commenced.
Unlike its reaction to other global conflicts, India has notably avoided an explicit condemnation of the breach of Iranian sovereignty. Instead, the Prime Minister took the step of "strongly condemning" the retaliatory Iranian attacks on the UAE, referring to the Emirati President as his "brother" and expressing full solidarity with the Gulf nation.
The economic stakes for India are arguably higher than for any other regional player. Beyond the immediate threat to its energy supply, much of which passes through the now-volatile Strait of Hormuz, India is concerned about the future of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEEC) and its significant investment in Iran’s Chabahar Port.
If the conflict leads to regime change or a prolonged regional war, India’s "gateway" to Central Asia and its long-term connectivity projects could be permanently derailed. Domestically, the government is also on high alert; the Ministry of Home Affairs has cautioned various states against potential communal unrest or protests following the reported death of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in the strikes
Japan and South Korea
The combined response from Tokyo and Seoul has been characterized by a state of "high-alert pragmatism," as both nations are caught between their reliance on the U.S. security umbrella and their desperate need for Middle Eastern energy.
Following the strikes, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung have coordinated closely to issue a "measured" response that avoids explicit endorsement of the military action while emphasizing the non-negotiable need for nuclear non-proliferation.
The primary fear in both capitals is the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, where transit volumes plummeted by 86% in the days following the attack.
This is an existential threat for two of the world’s most energy-dependent economies; Japan imports 95% of its crude oil from the region, while South Korea relies on it for 70% of its supply. To calm panicked markets, which saw the Kospi plunge over 7% and the Nikkei drop 3%, both governments have highlighted their massive strategic reserves, with Japan holding 254 days of supply and South Korea over 210 days, though officials warn these are only temporary buffers against a prolonged war.
The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the open ocean. It is one of the world’s most strategically important maritime chokepoints. Image: Wiki Commons
Beyond the economic fallout, the crisis has triggered a deeper sense of strategic anxiety across East Asia, particularly over the potential diversion of US military assets to the Middle East. Lawmakers in both Tokyo and Seoul have raised concerns that a significant portion of American defence resources could now be tied up in the region, potentially weakening deterrence in Northeast Asia.
The concern stems from the possibility that a prolonged Middle East conflict could reduce the US military presence in the Indo-Pacific. With one US aircraft carrier in the region currently undergoing maintenance, some policymakers worry that adversaries such as North Korea, or even China, could view the situation as an opportunity to test the regional balance, particularly around the Taiwan Strait or the Korean Peninsula.
In response, Japan has reportedly sought assurances from Washington that its regional deterrence commitments will remain intact. Meanwhile, South Korea’s National Intelligence Service has established an emergency monitoring team to closely track developments both in the Gulf and along the 38th parallel, the heavily fortified border between North and South Korea, for any signs of opportunistic military activity.
China
The Chinese government’s response has been characterised by many diplomatic observers as a calculated "muted" stance.
While Foreign Minister Wang Yi issued a formal condemnation calling the strikes a "violation of international law" and a "trampling of the UN Charter," Beijing notably stopped short of pledging military support or retaliatory measures. This restraint is seen by experts as a "wait-and-see" approach, as China seeks to avoid being drawn into a direct confrontation with the Trump administration while it assesses the shifting power dynamics in Tehran.
Despite the public rhetoric, Beijing’s actions have been primarily humanitarian and defensive; the Foreign Ministry confirmed that more than 3,000 Chinese nationals have already been evacuated from Iran, with one confirmed Chinese fatality in Tehran during the initial waves of the attack.
Strategically, some geopolitical analysts argue that China may find a hidden "benefit" in this escalation. A prolonged conflict in the Gulf forces the United States to expend significant military resources and political capital in a secondary theater, effectively diluting the "Pivot to Asia" and easing American pressure on China’s own borders.
However, this potential strategic gain is heavily offset by China’s extreme vulnerability to energy disruptions. As the world’s largest oil importer, China relies on the Persian Gulf for a majority of its energy, and the reported 86% drop in transit through the Strait of Hormuz is an "Achilles' heel" for the Chinese economy. To manage this risk, Beijing is reportedly using its position as Iran’s primary economic lifeline to demand stability for its interests. Amidst the chaos, Tehran has reportedly provided explicit assurances to China that its remaining nationals and critical infrastructure projects will be protected from the internal turmoil or retaliatory strikes.
Underpinning Beijing's composure is a pragmatic refusal to commit to a "sinking ship." While China has spent years building a "comprehensive strategic partnership" with Iran through discounted oil deals and infrastructure investment, it has carefully avoided binding security obligations.
Experts point out that China’s Middle East policy depends on maintaining its carefully brokered ties with Iran’s rivals, such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which would be jeopardised by a direct military alliance with Tehran.
By maintaining a "measured" response, China is positioning itself to be the "voice of stability" that can deal with whoever eventually holds power in Iran, while simultaneously leveraging the US distraction to strengthen its own strategic hand in the Indo-Pacific.
Singapore
Singapore has emerged as a clear "voice of reason," prioritising neutrality and pragmatic preparation over political posturing.
The city-state’s leadership has issued grave warnings regarding the collapse of the rules-based order and the resulting "highly uncertain global climate."
Singapore was among the first in the region to issue a blanket deferment for all travel to the Middle East, citing the risk of flight cancellations and airspace closures.
Domestically, the government has stepped up security at checkpoints and is bracing for a sustained spike in energy prices and maritime insurance costs.
Singapore’s strategy is one of defensive resilience, focusing on protecting its status as a global trade hub from the inevitable ripple effects of a sustained Gulf war.
-Asia Media Centre