The second round of negotiations between Iran and the United States remains stalled. While the ceasefire remains in place, the situation remains frozen, with Iran effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and the United States retaliating by establishing a naval blockade in the Gulf. In principle, both are wrong because they interfere with control of the so-called “global commons.”president Donald Trump Still unwilling to negotiate, most of his communications were threats in the form of posts on X in the Capital. However, openly insulting the other party is not the best basis for negotiation. The speed of social media has fundamentally changed the substance and confidentiality of negotiations. There is now an oscillation between escalation and diplomacy that is changing all the time and affecting global commodity prices, currency values and stock index charts. India is no exception.U.S. demands focus on the three pillars of Iran’s security, its nuclear ambitions, its missile program (and now also its drones and regional proxies). Iran’s position remains more constrained. It has apparently signaled a willingness to temporarily limit enrichment, reduce stockpiles and accept international monitoring in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and the freezing of its accounts. Missile forces and regional ties are not on the table. In addition, the second war that broke out during the negotiations also made Iran urgently need a guaranteed and comprehensive non-aggression treaty.But now another sticking point has been added. The U.S. naval blockade of Hormuz. While a ceasefire is essential to stop the bombing, blocking and closing the Strait of Hormuz is an act of war under relevant international law. The open question is, how long will the lockdown last? Iran believes, and has expressed this many times, that it can withstand pressure. It’s a similar story in Afghanistan, where the Taliban are able to absorb pain and then turn time into a strategic asset. Unfortunately, time is not a solution but a path to deeper instability, as the Strait of Hormuz is not a highway within a remote mountainous country but a vital artery for global energy flows and geopolitical influence. The world is currently facing three conflicts, but not all wars are fought in the same way. The war in Ukraine has been going on for more than four years, and the wars in Gaza and Lebanon have been going on for more than two years. Both are bloody, but ineffective in their own ways. Israel has failed to eliminate threats on its borders, while Hamas and Hezbollah maintain control, albeit in diminished strength. By comparison, the current war in Iran has ended just two months ago. While Ukraine has exposed the naked arsenal of European countries, the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the widening of the conflict due to engagements with targets in the Gulf has sent devastating ripples across the globe. When asked by reporters on March 20 whether the United States was at war, President Trump responded: “It depends on what your definition of war is. And, I never said war. I said kinetic peace. That’s a great statement.” Someone give me credit. “
Iran
In fact, Iran has now been attacked twice, both times during ongoing negotiations. Before the war began, Iran was negotiating and preparing for conflict. Its war preparations have four interrelated strategies: dispersion and empowerment (mosaic defense); succession reductions to offset the impact of decapitation attacks; horizontal escalation by attacking Gulf states to increase the cost of the war; and blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, thereby increasing the cost of the war. Iran has endured beheadings and de-escalation attacks. Dispersion allows it to increase the survivability of missiles and drones in counterattacks, while delegation means their commanders can operate without constant contact with top leadership and have been given pre-authorized orders on how to respond.Survival strategies are also known to rely on deeply buried production and shooting sites. Another aspect that has now come to light is Iran’s enhanced satellite-based ISR and targeting capabilities. According to an April 2026 Financial Times investigation, Chinese private company EarthEye allegedly sold Iran a high-resolution TEE-01B satellite in late 2024 that was used to monitor U.S. military installations in the Middle East before and after a U.S. attack in early 2026.But the Chinese Foreign Ministry denied the report, calling it untrue. What is clear is that Iran’s targeting in this war is more accurate and effective than it was in June 2025.
what to do next
The next round of negotiations that everyone was speculating on has not yet happened. The fact is that Iran, Israel and the United States all need to coexist and the world’s energy needs to flow. The fact is that if both sides see the rising costs of conflict as unbearable, they will be prepared for peace. If one party finds the costs unbearable and the other party still has the ability to bear losses, then the stronger party will demand surrender. The key question is whether the space Iran creates through its dynamic response can be translated into diplomatic gains: sanctions relief and assurances of an end to hostilities. This comes back to the question of what Iran can concede and to what extent.
Where does India stand in this matrix?
India’s stakes in West Asia lie in its geographical proximity to the Gulf states and its western maritime border along the Arabian Sea and the wider Indian Ocean region, with important trade and energy sea lines of communication running through it. This proximity makes instability in the Gulf, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, a pressing issue. India and China are the countries most affected by the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. It also maintains strategic relations with all major actors, including the United States, Israel and Iran. It has good relations with the Gulf countries with which it has trading relations. The protracted conflict in West Asia has also had a direct impact on remittances from the large Indian diaspora in the region. India also enjoys a level of overall trust and, more importantly, its own interests are compromised by the conflict. It has sufficient military capabilities and nuclear deterrence to deserve respect. While China remains reluctant to intervene directly in the dispute, it also has deep ties to the region, and the Gulf blockade is affecting India and China as they are among the region’s largest buyers of crude oil. In fact, China is the largest buyer of Iranian crude oil. In this complex and interdependent era, both India and China need to focus on their mutual interests in reopening the Strait of Hormuz. India, which currently controls the BRICS, is in a unique position not only to tell the United States that “this is not an era of war,” but also to join forces with China to pressure Iran and the United States to lift the “double blockade” and allow the free flow of energy and goods. The idea of victory is demonstrated by the ongoing conflict. Both Russia and Israel focus on total victory, at the expense of their adversaries in humanitarian losses, but have so far been unable to achieve victory that guarantees total security. In all three ongoing conflicts, overwhelming disparity in military power is not the answer. The consequences of a resumption of hostilities would be dire, both in terms of humanitarian and economic costs. Logically, both sides should resolve the issue through a face-saving compromise without causing more damage. But we currently live in a world devoid of principles and logic, with the United Nations becoming a bystander due to its “veto rule” acting as a firewall. India now needs to seize the moment and join China in pressuring the United States and Iran to open the strait. India is well suited for this role as it is also a leading voice in the Global South advocating for peace, security and prosperity. Its ties to the United States cannot come at the expense of the economy of its people. In addition to shaping global governance, it is ultimately important that national interests take precedence over all other concerns, and this is currently to avoid the economic impact of a “double blockade” in the Strait of Hormuz. The only question is the method; “quiet diplomacy” or “harder stance”.
