Tel Aviv, Dec 2 (NationPress) India’s willingness to impose ramifications on a system that facilitates terrorism, without waiting for external confirmation, has opened up fresh avenues for strengthening Israel-India strategic collaboration, as highlighted in a report on Tuesday.

This development signifies the advent of a novel Indian strategy—one that the global community cannot overlook.

“These transformations hold significance for Israel. India’s revised deterrence stance, which explicitly dismisses nuclear coercion, blurs the line between proxy terrorism and state accountability, and showcases a readiness to act swiftly and accurately, reflects many principles that Israel has depended on for years,” stated John Spencer, Executive Director at the US-based Urban Warfare Institute, alongside Lauren Dagan Amoss, an international academic specializing in India’s foreign and security strategies, in their contribution to the Israeli think tank Begin–Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies, associated with Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

“Both nations confront adversaries that utilize terrorism as a strategic mechanism under the guise of nuclear uncertainty. India’s actions in Operation Sindoor, particularly its success against Chinese-sourced PL-15 missiles and HQ-9/P air defense systems, deliver operational insights directly applicable to Israel, especially as Chinese technology proliferates in the Middle East. This emerging alignment is not merely rhetorical; it is doctrinal,” they elaborated.

The experts noted that for almost a decade, India has been moving away from the doctrine of strategic restraint. The trends in responses to significant Pakistan-based terrorist incidents, including Uri in 2016, Balakot in 2019, and Pahalgam in 2025, highlighted that predictable retaliation was not dissuading cross-border terrorism but rather enabling it. Restraint, once perceived as a stabilizing strategy, has turned out to be strategically perilous.

“Indian strategic restraint was intended to avert escalation with Pakistan. However, in practice, it had the opposite effect. Terrorist factions backed by Pakistan’s security agencies took advantage of the separation between terrorism and state aggression, assuming that India would refrain from decisive retaliation or cross-border action. Limited responses led to predictable patterns, and such predictability invited further violence,” the experts remarked.

Spencer and Amoss observed that India has transitioned from its previous approach to a doctrine of compellence, viewing major attacks as acts of war. This shift was made clear during Operation Sindoor when Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that significant terrorist attacks would elicit a wartime response instead of being treated as law enforcement matters.

“The government no longer waits for lengthy attribution cycles or international pressure before taking action. Pre-emptive strikes are regarded as a sovereign right. During Operation Sindoor, India acted swiftly and decisively, utilizing long-range fire, drone swarms, loitering munitions, and real-time integrated intelligence. This operation broke the old paradigm and indicated a permanent doctrinal transformation,” they concluded.