Ilon Musk
According to media reports citing sources in the U.S. administration, the conversation took place on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, and focused on the escalation around Iran and threats to global energy supplies. Musk allegedly took part in it – an unprecedented case for a private citizen to discuss a military conflict at the level of heads of state, Reuters notes.
Third extra
Information about Musk’s presence, initially published by US media, quickly went beyond a technological sensation and turned into a political issue. A harsh reaction followed in India, with the country’s Ministry of External Affairs officially stating that the conversation was “strictly bilateral” and did not include third parties.
This discrepancy between the U.S. leaks and India’s official position has intensified questions about the transparency of diplomatic contacts and the credibility of information circulating within the bilateral relationship.
The US side, for its part, did not give a clear answer or comment on Musk’s role. The White House limited itself to wording about a “productive conversation” between the leaders without specifying the composition of the participants, according to Reuters.
Against this backdrop, Musk’s involvement takes on a broader political meaning. His companies, including SpaceX, play a growing role in communications infrastructure and defense technologies, including satellite systems that have already been used in conflict zones.
Whoever owns the information owns the world
Critics in Washington see what happened as a worrying signal of the blurring of the lines between state institutions and private capital.
“It raises the fundamental question of who makes foreign policy – elected leaders or owners of critical infrastructure,” said a former U.S. security official familiar with the practice of interstate negotiations.
In contrast, proponents of a more pragmatic approach point out that technology corporations are increasingly becoming the de facto operators of key systems, from communications to data. As such, their participation in crisis discussions may be “de facto inevitable.
Nevertheless, the very fact of contradictory statements surrounding the call underscores a new reality: in war and instability, control over information becomes no less sensitive than control over military decisions.
Against the backdrop of the ongoing conflict over Iran and threats to the Strait of Hormuz, this episode reinforces concerns in the political circles of the US and its allies: the influence of technology leaders is moving beyond business and ever deeper into the realm of strategic decisions.
