Iran security chief and NSA Ajit Doval hold phone call, discuss West Asia conflict, bilateral issues

India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and Iran’s security chief Mohsen Rezaei held a phone call about the worsening situation in West Asia. They exchanged views on regional and international developments and matters of mutual interest. The discussion also covered India-Iran bilateral ties, though neither side released detailed negotiating points.

The call followed an attack at Riyadh’s international airport that killed one Indian and injured 10 others. It also came after attacks on two merchant vessels near the Strait of Hormuz. Two Indian seafarers were missing after a drone attack on MT Petrol Dolphin. These incidents gave the conversation an immediate security and maritime backdrop.

India has urged dialogue and diplomacy, freedom of navigation, and protection for civilian infrastructure and merchant shipping. The Iranian embassy announced the call, but India issued no separate readout. The conversation therefore signals continued contact, while leaving the precise areas of agreement or disagreement undisclosed.

Ajit Doval and Mohsen Rezaei are senior officials responsible for national-security discussions in their countries. Doval is India’s National Security Adviser. His role places him at the center of sensitive security and strategic conversations with foreign counterparts. Rezaei is described as Doval’s Iranian counterpart and Iran’s security chief.

Rezaei is the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council. That body is identified in the article through his official title, rather than through a detailed explanation of its powers. Their direct phone call created a channel for discussing the conflict, maritime attacks, regional developments, and India-Iran relations.

The officials’ positions matter because the conversation involved security concerns extending beyond one country. India is balancing relations with Iran, Gulf Arab states, and wider regional developments. The call showed that both sides maintained official contact during a period of hostilities, even though no detailed readout was released by India.

In this article, the West Asia conflict means the current regional hostilities affecting Iran, Gulf Arab states, shipping routes, and civilians. The article says the conflict was triggered by attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran in February. It does not provide a complete timeline or formal description of every front.

The named or described participants include Israel, the United States, Iran, Gulf Arab states, and Iran-backed Houthi rebels. The Houthis attacked Riyadh’s international airport, while Gulf states were described as repeatedly targeted by the Iranian military because they host US military bases. Iranian attacks also affected merchant vessels near the Strait of Hormuz.

The fighting has consequences beyond the countries directly involved. One Indian was killed and 10 injured in the Riyadh attack. Indian seafarers were also affected by attacks on merchant ships. India has responded by calling for dialogue, diplomacy, safe navigation, and protection of civilian infrastructure.

The article reports that 18 Indians had been killed in the West Asia conflict. Eleven of those victims were seafarers. This means most of the Indian deaths identified in the article involved people working at sea, rather than only civilians caught in attacks on land.

The danger is illustrated by several recent incidents. One Indian was killed and 10 others injured in an attack on Riyadh’s international airport. Separately, two merchant vessels with Indian crew members were attacked near the Strait of Hormuz. Two Indian seafarers were reported missing after a drone struck MT Petrol Dolphin.

These figures explain why India has emphasized freedom of navigation and the safety of seafarers. They also make the conflict a direct national concern for India. Continued attacks could bring further risks to Indian crews and complicate the country’s efforts to maintain balanced relations across West Asia.

The Strait of Hormuz is presented in the article as a crucial setting for attacks on merchant vessels and the safety of seafarers. When ships are attacked, crews can be killed, injured, or reported missing. Cargoes may also be delayed, and shipping companies may face higher insurance and security costs. These broader trade and energy effects are established consequences of maritime disruption.

The article gives a direct example. Two vessels with Indian crew members were attacked near the strait. Two Indian seafarers went missing after a drone attack on MT Petrol Dolphin. India has therefore called for freedom of navigation and continued efforts to protect merchant shipping and seafarers.

Because the waterway carries energy shipments, prolonged danger can interrupt or slow energy supplies and raise uncertainty in global markets. The article does not quantify such disruption. It does show why India links maritime security to national interests, trade, and the safety of its citizens working at sea.

India is trying to protect relationships with both Iran and Gulf Arab states while those sides occupy opposing positions in the conflict. The article describes this as a delicate balance. India has historic ties with Iran, but it also expresses solidarity with Gulf Arab states that have repeatedly been targeted by the Iranian military.

The tension is especially clear around security and shipping. Gulf states host US military bases, which the article identifies as a reason for Iranian attacks. At the same time, Indian seafarers have been killed or injured in attacks on merchant vessels near the Strait of Hormuz. India therefore has direct human and economic interests in both relationships.

India’s approach has been to avoid choosing a single regional camp in its public position. It urges dialogue and diplomacy, opposes attacks on merchant shipping and civilian infrastructure, and seeks safe navigation. Maintaining communication with Iran while supporting Gulf security helps India manage these overlapping concerns.

Freedom of navigation means keeping important sea routes open for lawful maritime movement. In the article’s context, it includes allowing merchant vessels to travel without attacks or coercion and protecting the seafarers aboard them. The principle matters because modern economies depend on ships moving goods and energy between countries.

The Strait of Hormuz shows the issue clearly. Two merchant vessels with Indian crew members were attacked near the strait, and two Indian seafarers were reported missing after a drone strike on MT Petrol Dolphin. These incidents show how threats to navigation quickly become threats to people, trade, and national interests.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi sought continued efforts to ensure freedom of navigation and seafarer safety during a meeting with Iran’s president. India has also opposed attacks on merchant shipping and civilian infrastructure. Keeping routes open can reduce disruption, but the article does not say when the conflict or maritime danger will end.