By John Q. Hosedrinker 
India has seized three oil tankers, the Stellar Ruby, Asphalt Star, and Al Jafzia, which were sanctioned by the US and linked to Iran, and has subsequently intensified maritime surveillance to combat illicit trade. These vessels reportedly disguised their identities to circumvent law enforcement, with their owners based overseas. India’s action aims to prevent its waters from being utilized for ship-to-ship transfers designed to conceal the origin of oil cargoes, a common tactic for bypassing sanctions. Despite these seizures, the National Iranian Oil Company denies any connection to the tankers or their cargoes.
Read the original article here
India has recently made headlines by seizing three ships near Mumbai that are reportedly linked to Iran and have been sanctioned by the United States. This action by Indian authorities has sparked a flurry of discussion and speculation, especially considering the complex geopolitical landscape and previous incidents involving Iran and India.
The immediate context for India’s seizure of these vessels appears to be a tit-for-tat response to Iran’s earlier actions. Specifically, Iran had seized an Indian vessel, the Valiant Roar, in December 2025, detaining its crew members, many of whom are Indian citizens, in Bandar Abbas. This was followed by Iran’s seizure of two other tankers in February, also with significant Indian crew members onboard. The alleged inhumane conditions and denial of consular access for these detained Indian sailors seem to be a primary driver behind India’s decision to take these three Iranian ships.
It’s worth noting the stark contrast in public reaction when similar actions are taken by different nations. When the United States seizes vessels, especially those involved in oil shipments, it often elicits strong criticism, with accusations of piracy and theft. However, when India undertakes a similar measure, the narrative seems to shift, with some commenters expressing approval and even humor about “keeping the oil.” This highlights a perceived double standard in how international actions are viewed, potentially influenced by pre-existing biases or narratives.
The seizure is being interpreted by many as a strategic move by India to exert leverage and secure the release of its detained citizens. The prior friendly relations between India and Iran, particularly their collaboration on the Chabahar port project aimed at bypassing Pakistan, makes this recent development all the more significant. It suggests that even strong bilateral ties can be strained when national interests, especially the safety of citizens, are at stake.
This situation also brings up questions about the broader trend of ship seizures. Some wonder if this is a new phenomenon spurred by recent U.S. actions against Venezuelan ships, or if it’s a long-standing practice. The article’s focus on the illegality of the tankers under Indian law provides a domestic justification for the seizure, separate from any potential international implications.
The perception of this action also varies. While some see it as a straightforward enforcement of internal laws, others believe it’s a direct retaliation for Iran’s earlier seizures. There’s a sentiment that this action doesn’t fit a narrative of “America bad,” which might explain why it hasn’t garnered as much widespread attention as similar actions by the U.S. This suggests that geopolitical narratives can heavily influence how events are interpreted and reported.
The quantity of oil potentially seized is also a point of interest. If the three vessels carried a significant amount of oil, it could substantially contribute to India’s energy needs, leading to speculation about opportunistic acquisition or even a novel approach to acquiring oil, particularly in the context of Russian oil purchases.
India’s foreign policy is often characterized as a delicate balance between neutrality and maintaining relationships, allowing for sudden shifts if a partner “acts out of line.” This incident seems to be a prime example of such a shift, with India prioritizing the welfare of its citizens over its previous amicable ties with Iran.
There’s also a degree of skepticism about the extent of India’s reliance on the U.S. Navy in this particular action. While U.S. presence is noted, some argue that India’s strategic decisions are primarily based on mutual interests rather than outright dependence on other powers, even its allies like the U.S., Russia, or France. The mention of Iran’s potential involvement in fomenting unrest within India adds another layer of complexity to the bilateral relationship.
The idea that India might be capitalizing on the perceived instability of Iran’s current regime is also being discussed. This perspective suggests that India, known for its opportunistic approach to international relations, might be seeing an advantage in asserting itself at a time when Iran is facing internal and external pressures. This is contrasted with the notion that India’s actions are purely retaliatory and aimed at the immediate release of its citizens.
The comments also touch upon the “brown on brown crime” observation, suggesting that certain geopolitical issues involving non-Western nations receive less attention or are framed differently by various political factions. This is juxtaposed with the argument that the current situation is about retaliatory behavior rather than opportunistic gains, particularly in light of previous Iranian detentions of Indian sailors.
The discussion also brings up the contentious issue of the U.S. potentially influencing India’s decision, particularly in the context of their strengthening ties. The article’s mention of the U.S. cutting tariffs on Indian goods after India agreed to halt Russian oil imports adds weight to this speculation, suggesting a quid pro quo dynamic.
Ultimately, the seizure of these three Iranian-linked ships by India near Mumbai is a multifaceted event. It is deeply rooted in the immediate grievance of detained Indian sailors, but it also intersects with broader geopolitical considerations, regional power dynamics, and the perceived consistency in international responses to similar actions. The situation underscores the complex interplay of national interest, citizen welfare, and strategic maneuvering on the global stage.