The second round of talks between Iran and America has been inconclusive. The situation remains stable, although a ceasefire remains in place but Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, while the US has established a naval blockade of the Gulf in retaliation. Primarily, both are wrong because they interfere with the control of the so-called ‘global commons’.President Donald Trump is against negotiating and most of his communications are threats at the ‘Capitals’ in the form of posts on X. However, publicly insulting the other party is not the best basis for negotiation. The essence and privacy of interactions have been fundamentally changed by the speed of social media. Now there is an ups and downs between tensions and diplomacy that is changing every hour and affecting the graphs of commodity prices, currencies values and stock indices across the world. India is no exception.The US is seeking to focus on Iran’s three pillars of security, its nuclear ambitions, missile program which now also includes drones and regional proxies. Iran’s situation remains more limited. It has clearly indicated a willingness to temporarily limit enrichment, reduce reserves, and accept international monitoring in exchange for sanctions relief and a freeze on its accounts. Missile forces and regional relations were not on the negotiating table. Furthermore, the second war in the midst of the negotiations also made it imperative for Iran to demand a guaranteed, comprehensive non-aggression pact.But now another important point has been added. The issue of the US naval blockade of Hormuz. Although a ceasefire is necessary to the extent that the bombardment ceases, the blockade and closure of the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war under the relevant international law provisions. The real question is, how long can the blockade continue? Iran believes, and has expressed it in many words, that it can withstand pressure. There is an analogy in Afghanistan where the Taliban was able to absorb pain and then turn time into a strategic asset. Unfortunately, time is not a solution and it is a path towards deeper instability because the Strait of Hormuz is not a highway within a country in a remote mountainous area, but a vital artery for global energy flows and geopolitical levers of influence. The world is currently facing three conflicts but not all wars are fought equally. The Ukraine war has been going on for more than four years, while the wars in Gaza and Lebanon have been going on for more than two years. Both are bloody but still ineffective in their own ways. Israel has failed to eliminate the threat on its borders while both Hamas and Hezbollah, despite being weakened, are holding their own. In comparison, the current Iran war has barely completed two months. Although Ukraine has exposed European countries’ weapons stockpiles, the impact of escalating the conflict by closing the Strait of Hormuz and engaging targets in the Gulf has caused devastating ripple effects around the world. On March 20, when asked by a reporter if the US was at war, President Trump responded, “It depends what your definition of war is. Also, I never said war. I said kinetic peace. Great phrase.” Someone give me credit.”
iran
The truth is that Iran has now been attacked twice, both times in the midst of ongoing negotiations. Before the war began, Iran was negotiating but also preparing for conflict. Its war preparations consisted of four interconnected strategies: dispersal and delegation (mosaic defense); succession redundancy to compensate for the impact of decapitation attacks; horizontal escalation to increase the costs of the war by attacking Gulf countries; and blocked the Strait of Hormuz, increasing the cost of the war. Iran suffered the pain of decapitation and collapse attacks. Dispersion allowed it to increase the survivability of its missiles and drones for counter-attacks and delegation meant that its commanders could operate without being in constant contact with the top leadership and were given orders in advance on how to respond.Survival strategies, as it is now known, also depended on deeply buried production and firing sites. Another aspect, which has now come to light, is Iran’s advanced satellite-based ISR and targeting capabilities. According to an April 2026 Financial Times investigation, a private Chinese firm, Earth Eye Company, reportedly sold a high-resolution TEE-01B satellite to Iran in late 2024, which was used to monitor US military installations in the Middle East, before and after US strikes in early 2026.However, the Chinese Foreign Ministry denied this report and called it false. What is clear is that Iran’s targeting in this war has been more accurate and effective than in June 2025.
what next
The next round of talks about which everyone was speculating is not happening at the moment. The fact is that both Iran and Israel and America need to co-exist and the energy of the world needs to flow. The truth is that if both sides felt that the rising costs of conflict were unbearable, they would be willing to make peace. If only one feels the costs are unbearable while the other can afford the losses, the stronger one will press for capitulation. The key question is whether the space Iran has created through its dynamic responses can be translated into diplomatic leverage: sanctions relief and a guarantee of a cessation of hostilities. This shows what Iran can accept and to what extent.
Where does India fit in this matrix?
India’s stake in West Asia is due to its geographical proximity to the Gulf countries and the fact that its western maritime border runs along the Arabian Sea and the wider Indian Ocean region, through which vital trade and energy communication sea lines run. This proximity makes instability in the Gulf, especially the Strait of Hormuz, an immediate concern. Along with China, India is also most affected by the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. It also has strategic relations with all major actors such as the US, Israel and Iran. It has excellent relations with the Gulf countries with which it has trade relations. The protracted conflict in West Asia also has a direct impact on remittances from India’s large diaspora in the region. India enjoys a high degree of confidence in all parties and, more importantly, its own interests are being harmed by the conflict. It has enough military capability and nuclear deterrence to command respect. While China is reluctant to enter the fray directly, it also has deep ties with the region and the Gulf blockade is impacting both India and China as they are among the largest buyers of crude oil from the region. Actually, China is the largest buyer of Iranian crude oil. In this era of complexity and interdependence, both India and China need to focus on their aligned interests with respect to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. India, currently holding the reins of BRICS, is in a unique position to not only tell the US that ‘this is not the era of war’, but also to work closely with China and put pressure on both Iran and the US with regard to removing the ‘dual blockade’ and allowing free flow of energy and goods. What the ongoing conflicts have demonstrated is the notion of victory. Both Russia and Israel focused on complete victory and the opponent paid the price in human losses but to date it has been impossible to achieve victory to guarantee complete security. In all three ongoing conflicts, overwhelming military power differences have not been the solution. The consequences of resumption of hostilities are catastrophic for both its human and economic costs. Logic dictates that both sides resolve issues without causing much destruction in a face-saving agreement. But we currently live in a world that lacks both principles and logic and the UN remains a mute spectator because of its ‘veto rule’ which acts as a firewall. India now needs to seize the opportunity and join hands with China to put pressure on both the US and Iran to open the strait. India fits perfectly into this role as it is also the leading voice of the Global South and advocates for peace, security and prosperity. Its relations with America cannot be at the cost of economic loss to its people. Apart from shaping global governance, what matters in the end is that national interests must prevail over all other issues and, at present, minimize the economic fallout resulting from the ‘dual blockade’ of the Strait of Hormuz. The only question is one of method; ‘Quiet diplomacy’ or ‘tough stance’.
