As the conflict between Iran and Israel deepens, fears are growing that the situation could spiral into a wider regional or even global confrontation. If and when this happens, this is how we see major Asian powers would position themselves if hostilities were to escalate further.

China: strategic fence-sitter with leanings towards Iran

China has long pursued a policy of non-alignment in the Middle East, opting instead to deepen economic relations with all parties. It counts Iran as a vital supplier of energy and a key partner in its Belt and Road Initiative, while also nurturing growing trade and technology ties with Israel.

In the event of an escalation, Beijing would likely call for restraint and push for a negotiated settlement. It may be doing so already behind the scenes. However, its silence or perceived tilt towards Tehran could provoke criticism from the West, especially given its past obstruction of UN resolutions critical of Iran.

As such, while Beijing is unlikely to offer direct military support, China may provide diplomatic cover for Iran at the United Nations and continue to engage economically with the country, especially if it believes Western sanctions are once again isolating Tehran.

India: officially neutral but slightly favours Israel

India finds itself in a delicate position. It has cultivated a strong defence and technology partnership with Israel, including joint missile projects and arms deals worth billions. At the same time, it relies heavily on Iranian oil – although to a much lesser extent in recent years. New Delhi also maintains cordial ties with Tehran due to shared regional interests and its sizeable Shia Muslim population.

New Delhi has traditionally avoided taking sides in Middle Eastern conflicts in a none-too-dissimilar manner to China, and is likely to continue pursuing “strategic autonomy.”

Analysts expect India to advocate for peace and diplomacy while quietly aligning more closely with Israel behind the scenes.

In the event of a regional conflagration, India will of course prioritise the safety of its large diaspora communities in the Gulf and the uninterrupted flow of energy supplies.

Japan: strongly pro-Western alignment albeit softly spoken

Japan, heavily reliant on Middle Eastern oil imports and a longstanding US ally, is likely to support any coordinated Western response to Iranian aggression, particularly if maritime trade routes are threatened.

Tokyo has historically followed Washington’s lead in foreign policy crises not directly involving Japanese territory, and is unlikely to break ranks if the conflict draws in American military involvement. However, Japan is also one of the few G7 countries to have maintained a degree of direct dialogue with Tehran, particularly on nuclear non-proliferation and regional stability. This may help put out fires if needed but officials in Japan would not risk their links to the West to act in any way favourably towards Iran.

Public statements from Japanese officials would likely emphasise the need for de-escalation, humanitarian aid, and conflict mediation, though any military or logistical support would be closely aligned with broader US-led coalition efforts.

South Korea: more US alignment

Like Japan, South Korea depends on energy imports from the Middle East and maintains a close military alliance with the United States. If the war expands and involves major US assets in the region, Seoul may be expected to offer support, possibly in the form of naval deployments or logistical backing.

However, with its own immediate security concerns tied to North Korea, South Korea would be reluctant to get directly involved in any confrontation that could drain its military resources or provoke domestic backlash, particularly as the nation is just settling down after a recent presidential election which brought an end to six months of political turmoil in the country.

Economically, South Korea has investments in both Israeli and Iranian markets, but its high-tech cooperation with Israel and strong alignment with the West suggest it would lean more towards supporting Israeli interests in the broader geopolitical frame.

Pakistan: diplomatic sympathy for Iran but little more

Pakistan’s foreign policy is shaped by complex religious, strategic, and regional dynamics. The two countries have deep cultural and sectarian ties, and Islamabad has often expressed support for Iran’s sovereignty and regional role.

Cracks have started to appear in the relationship since Israel’s opening salvo on June 13, however. To this end, while unlikely to provide direct or open military support, Pakistan would probably adopt a position of public neutrality coupled with quiet sympathy for Iran from government officials but more outspoken support on the streets.

Domestically, any form of support for Israel could trigger political unrest, especially among conservative and religious groups.

Pakistan is also mindful of its own security implications in Balochistan in the west of the country – an issue that overlaps with Iranian domestic politics to some extent. In the end though, the country’s longstanding ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, some of which back Israel in opposition to Iran, could limit its manoeuvrability.

Indonesia: vocal support for Palestine, reluctance on Iran

As the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia has no formal diplomatic ties with Israel and has traditionally been a vocal supporter of the Palestinian cause. Because of this, any Israeli escalation, especially involving civilian casualties, would likely provoke strong condemnation from Jakarta – but little more.

While not a direct ally of Iran, Indonesia’s public opinion and foreign policy establishment would be inclined to see the conflict as part of the broader Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

This could lead to a degree of diplomatic or symbolic support for Tehran, though the government would stop short of deeper engagement. Military intervention is out of the question.

Indonesia’s focus would instead be on urging international mediation and mobilising support through the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Malaysia: strong rhetoric, limited capacity

Malaysia has been one of the most outspoken critics of Israeli policy in the Muslim world. Like Indonesia, it does not recognise Israel and has frequently raised the issue of Palestine in multilateral forums.

If war erupts, Kuala Lumpur is expected to take a strongly critical stance against Israeli military action. However, Malaysia’s influence in the region and wider world is limited, and its support for Iran would likely remain rhetorical rather than material.

Domestically, the issue could galvanise public opinion, with political leaders across the spectrum seeking to outdo one another in showing solidarity with Palestinians and, by extension, Iran. In material terms there may be financial donations to causes linked to Iran or aid sent over, but little more.

Central Asia: Support for stability

Countries like Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan share historical, cultural, and religious ties with Iran but have largely remained neutral in broader Middle Eastern affairs.

Their primary concern would be regional stability and the security of their borders. With increasing Chinese and Russian influence in the region, Central Asian states may coordinate their positions through regional bodies such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), urging restraint from all sides.

Direct support for Iran would be unlikely, given their growing economic diversification and sensitivity to Western sanctions.

ASEAN Bloc: varied opinions, Israel backed by the majority

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is unlikely to present a unified position on the Iran-Israel conflict. While some members, like Malaysia and Indonesia, would condemn Israel and call for support for Iran’s position, others such as Singapore and Vietnam would more than likely emphasise neutrality and regional stability. Thailand too as a regional economy of note would lean Israel if Bangkok opted to make itself heard.

ASEAN as a regional body may issue a joint statement urging de-escalation and respect for international law, but is unlikely to move beyond diplomatic expressions of concern. It quite simply doesn’t have the power to do more.

Result: Israel over Iran - just

In the event of a wider war between Iran and Israel, Asian nations are likely to fall along a spectrum ranging from vocal support for Iran to out and out alignment with the West and by extension tacit support for Israel.

The decisive factors will be national interests, especially energy security, diaspora safety in many cases, and domestic political calculations.

For many of these countries, the priority will be to contain the conflict, avoid entanglement, and safeguard economic and strategic interests. While some may offer rhetorical or symbolic support to one side, few are expected to take decisive military or economic steps that would fundamentally alter the balance of power in the Middle East.

Still, in a world increasingly divided by great power rivalry and shifting alliances, even silence speaks volumes.