India is positioning itself as a prominent arms exporter and strategic defense partner for Southeast Asian nations, challenging the historical dominance of the United States and China in the regional arms market. Countries in this region are increasingly viewing India as a viable alternative for defense procurement, as New Delhi's ambitions for defense exports expand. A notable example of this shift is India's successful export of the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile to the Philippines in 2022, with ongoing negotiations for a similar deal with Indonesia.

Analysts indicate that India's approach to arms sales differs from that of its competitors. While China's military sales are often perceived as transactional and closely linked to geopolitical interests, and U.S. arms deals frequently come with sanctions and political conditions, India is seen as offering a more neutral and partnership-oriented alternative. Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has emphasized this cooperative approach, highlighting discussions with Indonesia’s Defence Minister Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin about establishing a joint defense industry cooperation committee to facilitate military technology transfers.

This growing defense export presence reflects a strategic shift in Southeast Asia, providing regional players with a reliable and politically less complicated option amid escalating U.S.-China rivalry. By procuring weapons from India, Southeast Asian countries can navigate the complexities of U.S.-China relations without antagonizing either side, enhancing India's status as a key security stakeholder in the Indo-Pacific region.

In contrast, the U.S. military's recent operations have raised significant ethical and legal concerns. On September 2, 2025, the U.S. executed a strike on a vessel in the Caribbean, resulting in the deaths of nine individuals and two survivors. A subsequent strike ordered by Admiral Frank Bradley targeted the survivors, raising questions about the legality of such double-tap strikes, which have historically faced criticism for violating humanitarian norms. The U.S. military's campaign in the Caribbean has reportedly resulted in over 80 fatalities across at least 21 targeted vessels, although evidence to substantiate these claims has not been provided.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly expressed a disregard for legal advice concerning rules of engagement, suggesting that adherence to international laws may compromise operational effectiveness. His narrative includes a controversial airstrike incident that could constitute a violation of international law, prompting scrutiny from various political figures and calls for accountability regarding military conduct.

These developments underscore the ongoing tension between operational objectives and humanitarian considerations in military engagements, highlighting the need for adherence to established legal frameworks governing military operations. As the discourse evolves, it raises critical questions about the implications of U.S. foreign policy and the responsibilities of military leaders in upholding both national and international law.