The Congress alleged that “Prime Minister Narendra Modi had surrendered to US President Donald Trump, endangering an important national interest. The BJP hit back, calling the allegation “pure fiction” and accusing the Congress of spreading lies. It shared an excerpt of Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal outlining the Centre’s stand on the issue.
A day after the publication of the report, the MEA made this clear India remains active in Chabahar under a valid waiver from US sanctions until April 26, 2026. The MEA said New Delhi is working with Washington DC to expand and implement the scheme.
Experts, meanwhile, have questioned both the premise of an ‘exit’ and the logic of sanctioning a project that undermines the strategic gains of China and Pakistan by providing a strategic counterbalance to Balochistan’s Gwadar port. Was India forced to leave Chabahar? And if so, how big would the loss be?
WHAT HAPPENED AT CHABAHAR PORT IN IRAN?
The immediate trigger for the fuss over Chabahar port was a report in a section of The Economic Times suggesting that India may consider a strategic withdrawal from the Chabahar port project as US sanctions pressure on Iran increases.
Iran has witnessed widespread unrest in recent weeks. Iranians took to the streets after the attack bazaar closed the bazaars about a depreciating rial and record inflation. The merchant demonstrations culminated in intense nationwide protests. The slogans demanded the ouster of the regime of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The clerical regime gathered 5,000 Iraqi militias and shut down the internet. A brutal response led to the deaths of more than 2,600 protesters.
The US sanctions in January against any entity trading with Iran brought into question Indian investments in Chabahar port.
However, according to The Economic Times report, the US had already imposed sanctions on India’s Chabahar project from September 2025. But to give the country time to complete the operations, the US gave it a six-month sanctions waiver.
“It is fair to say that the United States has paralyzed India’s strategic game by re-imposing sanctions on the port from September 29, 2025,” The Economic Times (ET) report said. It said the current sanctions waiver for Chabahar would expire in April 2026. According to the news report, the sanctions created uncertainty over India’s long-term operations at the port.
According to the report, India had liquidated its entire financial liability in the Chabahar port project. More than a year before the US reimposed sanctions, India transferred $120 million, the money New Delhi had pledged to Tehran for the development of the Chabahar project, ET reported, citing government sources.
The government source told ET that transferring funds to Iran would have become difficult if sanctions were reimposed. So the $120 million was done before the US sanctions came into effect.
WHY CHABAHAR PORT IS IMPORTANT TO INDIA
India has always operated in Chabahar the shadow of US sanctions against Iran. The report came at a time when Washington has tightened its stance toward Tehran. It has sparked speculation that India could be forced to scale back or recalibrate its role in the port on Iran’s Makran coast.
Chabahar, located in Sistan-Baluchestan province in southeastern Iran. It lies just outside the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial global energy bottleneck. The port is strategically invaluable to India. It provides a direct maritime route to Afghanistan and Central Asia, completely bypassing Pakistan. It is also an important junction in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which connects Mumbai to Russia and Europe via Iran.
The port also has a regional strategic perspective. Barely 170 km away is Gwadar in Pakistan, developed by China as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Chabahar has long been seen as India’s counterpart to the China-Pakistan axis in the Arabian Sea and the western Indian Ocean.
India initiated talks with Iran over Chabahar in 2003 and an MoU was signed in 2015. India took over operations of part of the Shahid Beheshti port in Chabahar in December 2018.
In In 2024, India and Iran signed a ten-year agreement replacing years of stop-gap arrangements. It signified New Delhi’s intention to secure a long-term presence in the port. India has also committed to developing rail connectivity from Chabahar to Zahedan on the Afghan border. The port, with an integration with Iran’s national railway network and the INSTC, opened access to various markets.
WHAT CONGRESS, BJP AND MEA SAID ABOUT CHABAHAR PORT?
The Congress seized on the report to launch a frontal attack on the Modi government.
In a strongly worded post on It claimed that “Modi relinquished control of Iran’s Chabahar port under pressure from US President Donald Trump,” adding that $120 million of Indian taxpayers’ money had “gone up in smoke.”
The Congress argued that Chabahar was “a huge economic and strategic victory” that was hailed by Modi himself, and accused the Center of maintaining “complete silence” as control over India was reportedly relinquished. It asked pointed questions like, “Why is India’s foreign policy dictated by the US White House?” and “Why is Narendra Modi allowing the US to put pressure on India?”
Congress leader Pawan Khera said, “To now hear that India has unceremoniously withdrawn from Chabahar at the first hint of pressure from the United States represents a new low in this government’s foreign policy.”
The Center said on Friday that the US Treasury had issued a letter granting India an unconditional sanctions waiver on Chabahar operations, valid till April 26, 2026. “We remain engaged with the US side in working out this arrangement,” MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said.
The BJP accused the Congress of spreading misinformation. “You are peddling lies, just like your leader, Rahul Gandhi. Your claim of surrender at Chabahar port is pure fiction,” the party said. It claimed that the ongoing talks with the US reflect “strong diplomacy”.
WHAT EXPERTS SAY ABOUT THE PORT OF CHABAHAR? IS IT AN EXIT? OR OVERFEEDING? AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
Various strategic experts delve into aspects other than political rhetoric.
Former Foreign Minister Kanwal Sibal argued that US sanctions on Chabahar hurt India much more than Iran.
From a different angle, Sushant Sareen, senior fellow at think tank ORF, argued that critics should acknowledge the reality. “India did this not by choice, but by coercion,” he wrote, challenging critics to openly defy US sanctions if they claim moral high ground. His point underscored the constraints under which Indian foreign policy operates in a sanctions-dominated global order dictated by Donald Trump.
“Chabahar is a connectivity project that gives India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Iran does not need Chabahar to have access to both,” Sibal wrote on X. He warned that expelling India would only benefit China and Pakistan. “It also opens the door for China to replace India in the project,” Sibal said, adding that India’s actual financial investment in Chabahar is modest. He added that US sanctions are “geopolitically meaningless”.
US-based scientist Christopher Clary offered a broader perspective. He said previous US administrations had avoided forcing India to make tough choices. “This administration loves to pull strings,” he wrote on X, suggesting the episode reflects a tougher U.S. approach to alliances.
Others wonder whether ‘abandoning Chabahar’ is even on the table. Executive Director of ORF Middle East Kabir Taneja noted that the project has developed at a “snail’s pace” since 2003, but has always been kept alive as a core project between India and Iran. “There’s no reason to change that,” he said.
“India has no choice but to leave Chabahar port. Fortunately, we have no resources there; we were running the port only with manpower from Iran,” another government official told The Economic Times. The person said there was no option but to exit if the US did not ease sanctions.
India could have chosen to protect its larger $132 billion trade with the US by liquidating its $120 million commitment to Iran. It appears to be a strategic exit for the time being.
Taken together, the expert assessment suggests that India has not abandoned Chabahar in the true sense of the word and has positioned itself for the long term. What exists instead is a familiar pattern: a strategic ambition limited by US sanctions. Until now this has been managed through temporary waivers and negotiations. If India were ever permanently expelled, the strategic loss would be significant. It wouldn’t be about some sunk investments. For now, India is in talks with the Trump administration to delay an exit after the US sanctions. This could also be a way to future-proof the project, and India would look to protect its larger economy from further tariffs.
– Ends
Tune in
#forced #India #withdraw #Irans #Chabahar #port #big #loss