U.S. unilateral actions in 2026 test India’s foreign policy, energy security, and strategic autonomy amid sanctions, tariffs, and global pressure.
U.S. Unilateralism in 2026: Strategic Pressure, Global Ripples, and India’s Quiet Dilemma
The new year has opened amid renewed global turbulence, driven largely by an assertive wave of unilateral actions from Washington. Under the renewed political influence of Donald Trump, the United States has intensified its use of military threats, economic sanctions, and tariff instruments to reshape global behaviour.
From Latin America to West Asia, from Russia-linked trade to even Europe’s Arctic periphery, the widening arc of American pressure is forcing many countries to re-evaluate their diplomatic postures. For India, the challenge is especially complex: how to protect strategic autonomy without triggering economic or diplomatic fallout from its most powerful partner.
A Renewed Phase of American Unilateralism
The opening weeks of 2026 have underlined a sharp return to unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy. Washington has demonstrated a willingness to bypass multilateral institutions and international consensus in favour of direct coercive tools.
Venezuela and Regime-Change Rhetoric
The controversial U.S. intervention in Venezuela — framed as a response to governance and human rights concerns — has drawn criticism from several countries for undermining sovereignty and international law. More worrying for many observers is the language emanating from Washington hinting at similar interventions elsewhere in South America. Such rhetoric has revived memories of Cold War–era interventions and unsettled governments across the region.
Greenland and European Unease
Simultaneously, renewed statements about the strategic importance of Greenland — including rhetoric about potential annexation — have unnerved European allies. While such proposals may appear rhetorical, they reinforce perceptions of a U.S. leadership increasingly willing to challenge established norms if strategic interests are at stake.
Russia-Linked Trade and the Tariff Sword
One of the most consequential developments is the proposed legislation in the U.S. Congress threatening tariffs of up to 500% on countries that continue to purchase oil, gas, or uranium from Russia.
For India, which has significantly increased discounted oil imports from Russia to stabilise domestic fuel prices, this poses a direct economic risk. Such tariffs could:
- Raise import costs dramatically
- Reduce export competitiveness in U.S. markets
- Create uncertainty for Indian refiners and traders
Even the debate around such legislation has already begun to influence market sentiment and long-term energy planning.
Iran: Sanctions, Tariffs, and Strategic Infrastructure
Tensions with Iran have also intensified. Washington has expanded sanctions and hinted at possible military action following Tehran’s crackdown on internal protests. Adding to this pressure, Trump announced plans to impose an additional 25% tariff on trade with any country continuing business ties with Iran.
Why Iran Matters to India
For India, Iran is not just another trading partner:
- It is a close civilisational neighbour
- A critical energy supplier in the past
- Central to India’s connectivity strategy to Central Asia
India’s investment in the Chabahar Port is especially significant. The port provides India with access to Afghanistan and Central Asia while bypassing Pakistan — a rare strategic advantage in the region.
Yet Washington is reportedly pressing New Delhi to scale back its involvement in Chabahar and further reduce Iran-related trade, echoing pressures seen during earlier sanction regimes.
New Delhi’s Muted Diplomatic Responses
Despite the scale of these developments, India’s official responses have been notably cautious.
- On Venezuela, the Ministry of External Affairs expressed “deep concern” but avoided explicitly naming the U.S.
- No formal statements have addressed U.S. threats against Cuba or Colombia
- On Iran, India has limited itself to issuing travel advisories and evacuation planning, without commenting on either internal developments or U.S. threats
This silence has stood out, particularly given India’s historical emphasis on sovereignty, non-intervention, and international law.
The Logic Behind Strategic Restraint
Indian officials privately argue that restraint is driven by pragmatism rather than passivity.
After a challenging phase in bilateral relations — marked by stalled trade negotiations and tariff disputes — there is hope that ties may stabilise. The U.S. Ambassador to India, Sergio Gor, has spoken positively about:
- Reviving a bilateral trade agreement
- India’s potential inclusion in a U.S.-led high-technology framework known as Pax Silica
From this viewpoint, public criticism of Washington at this moment could risk derailing fragile diplomatic momentum, without guaranteeing tangible gains.
The Economic and Diplomatic Costs of Silence
Critics, however, argue that silence carries its own costs.
Economic Impact
- Tariffs linked to Russian oil threaten India’s energy security
- Reduced Iran trade affects fertiliser supply, shipping routes, and infrastructure investments
- Uncertainty discourages long-term planning by Indian businesses
Diplomatic and Reputational Costs
As India prepares to host the BRICS+ Summit later this year, its reluctance to speak out on perceived violations of international norms may complicate relations with partners who value strategic autonomy not just as rhetoric, but as practice.
Lessons from 2019: A Cautionary Precedent
India’s experience in 2019 offers an important lesson. Under U.S. pressure, New Delhi halted imports of Iranian and Venezuelan oil, incurring higher energy costs and logistical disruptions.
Yet compliance:
- Did not prevent future sanctions threats
- Did not secure lasting trade concessions
- Did not shield India from new geopolitical pressures
The episode suggests that accommodation does not necessarily buy long-term stability.
Strategic Autonomy at a Crossroads
As U.S. unilateralism intensifies in 2026, the debate within India is becoming sharper and more consequential. The core question is no longer abstract:
- Can continued diplomatic caution safeguard India’s interests?
- Or does India risk gradual erosion of its strategic autonomy through repeated concessions?
For a country aspiring to a larger global role, the answer will shape not only its foreign policy posture in 2026, but also the credibility of its long-standing claim to independent decision-making on the world stage.
The choices India makes now — whether to remain silent, selectively engage, or more openly assert its positions — will resonate far beyond the current geopolitical cycle, defining how the world perceives India’s rise in an era of renewed great-power pressure.
