Strait of Hormuz crisis: The US blockade continues despite the extension of the ceasefire with Iran (Amnesty International photo)
The second round of talks between Iran and the United States has remained dead. The situation remains frozen, although the ceasefire remains in place, but Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, while the United States has imposed a naval blockade in the Gulf in response.
Fundamentally, they are both wrong because they interfere with the control of the so-called “global commons.”President Donald Trump remains averse to negotiating, and the bulk of his communications are threats in “capitals” in the form of posts on X. However, publicly insulting the other party is not the best basis for talks. The substance and confidentiality of negotiations have fundamentally changed due to the speed of social media. There is now an oscillation between escalation and diplomacy that changes hourly and affects commodity prices, currency values and stock index charts around the world.
India is no exception.American demands focused on the three pillars of Iran’s security: its nuclear ambitions and its missile program, which now also includes drones and regional proxies. Iran’s position remains more restrictive. It is clear that it has expressed its willingness to temporarily limit enrichment, reduce stockpiles, and accept international monitoring in exchange for easing sanctions and unfreezing its accounts.
Missile forces and regional relations were not on the table.
Moreover, the outbreak of a second war in the middle of the talks made it necessary for Iran to demand a guaranteed and comprehensive non-aggression treaty.But now another sticking point has been added. The issue of the US naval blockade of Hormuz. While a ceasefire is necessary to the extent that bombing stops, a blockade and closure of the Strait of Hormuz under the relevant provisions of international law constitutes an act of war. The question is: How long can the siege last? Iran believes, and has expressed this in many words, that it is able to withstand pressure. There is a similar case in Afghanistan, where the Taliban were able to absorb pain and then turn time into a strategic asset. Unfortunately, time is not a solution, but rather a path towards greater instability, as the Strait of Hormuz is not a highway within a country in a remote mountainous region, but a crucial artery for the flow of global energy and a geopolitical lever of influence. The world faces three conflicts at present, but not all wars are fought alike. The war in Ukraine has been going on for more than four years, while the war in Gaza and Lebanon has been going on for more than two years. Both are gory but ineffective in their own way. Israel has failed to eliminate the threat on its borders, while Hamas and Hezbollah have maintained their grip despite their weakness. In comparison, the current war with Iran is barely two months old.
Although Ukraine has exposed bare arsenals to European countries, the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the widening of the scope of the conflict through engagement with targets in the Gulf has led to devastating repercussions around the world. When asked by a reporter on March 20 whether the United States was at war, President Trump replied: “It depends on your definition of war. And I never said war. I said kinetic peace. Great phrase. I’m not talking about war.”
Someone give me credit.
Iran
The truth is that Iran has now been attacked twice, both times in the midst of ongoing talks. Before the war began, Iran was negotiating but also preparing for conflict. Its war preparations had four interconnected strategies: dispersion and delegation (mosaic defence); Repeated succession to offset the effect of decapitation strikes; Horizontal escalation to raise the cost of war by attacking the Gulf states; Closing the Strait of Hormuz, thus raising the cost of war. Iran has endured the pain of beheadings and humiliation. Dispersal allowed it to increase the survivability of its missiles and drones in counterattacks, and delegation meant that its commanders could operate without being in constant contact with higher command and had pre-delegated orders on how to respond.Survival strategies, as it is now known, also depend on deeply buried production and firing sites. Another aspect, which has now come to light, is Iran’s enhanced satellite-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and targeting capability. According to an April 2026 investigation by the Financial Times, a private Chinese company, Earth Eye Co, allegedly sold a high-resolution satellite TEE-01B to Iran in late 2024, which was used to monitor US military facilities across the Middle East, before and after US strikes in early 2026.But the Chinese Foreign Ministry denied this report, describing it as incorrect.
What is clear is that targeting Iran in this war was more precise and effective than it was in June 2025.
What’s next?
The next round of talks that everyone has been speculating about will not happen at the moment. The truth is that Iran, Israel, and the United States need to coexist, just as the world needs the flow of energy. The truth is that if both sides believed that the increasing cost of the conflict was unsustainable, they would be prepared for peace. If only one feels the cost is unbearable while the other retains the ability to bear the losses, the stronger will press for surrender. The key question here is whether the space Iran has created through its kinetic responses can be translated into diplomatic gains: sanctions relief and a guaranteed end to hostilities. This comes down to what Iran can give up and to what extent.
Where does India fit into this matrix?
India’s interest in West Asia is due to its geographical proximity to the Gulf states and the fact that its western maritime borders extend along the Arabian Sea and the wider Indian Ocean region through which important maritime lines of communication for trade and energy pass.
This proximity makes instability in the Gulf, especially in the Strait of Hormuz, an issue of immediate concern. India, along with China, is the most affected by the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz. It also enjoys strategic relations with all major actors such as the United States, Israel, and Iran. It enjoys excellent relations with the Gulf countries with which it has trade relations. The protracted conflict in West Asia also has direct consequences on remittances from the region’s large Indian community.
India also enjoys a degree of confidence across the board, and more importantly, its own interests suffer because of the conflict.
It possesses enough military capacity and nuclear deterrence to gain respect. While China remains reluctant to enter the fray directly, it also has deep ties to the region, and the blockade of the Gulf affects both India and China as they are among the largest buyers of crude oil from this region.
In fact, China is the largest buyer of Iranian crude. In this era of complex and interconnected interdependence, both India and China need to focus on their aligned interests regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. India, which currently holds the reins of BRICS, is in a unique position not only to tell the US that “this is not an era of war” but also to act in coordination with China and put pressure on both Iran and the US in terms of lifting the “dual blockade” and allowing the free flow of energy and goods. What the continuing conflicts have revealed is the idea of victory. Both Russia and Israel focused on complete victory and the opponent paid the price in human casualties, but so far it has not been possible to achieve victory to guarantee complete security. In all three ongoing conflicts, a significant difference in military power has not been the answer. The consequences of the resumption of hostilities are horrific both in terms of their humanitarian and economic costs.
Logic dictates that the two sides resolve the issues without causing further destruction in a face-saving settlement. But we currently live in an unprincipled and unreasonable world, and the UN is standing by because of its “veto rule” that acts as a firewall. India now needs to seize the opportunity and put pressure, along with China, on both the United States and Iran to open the strait. India fits this role perfectly because it is also the leading voice of the Global South and advocates for peace, security and prosperity. Its relations with the United States cannot be at the expense of the economic losses of its people. Aside from shaping global governance, what ultimately matters is that national interests should trump all other issues and, at present, is avoiding economic fallout as a result of the “double blockade” of the Strait of Hormuz.
The only question is how. “Quiet diplomacy” or “tougher stance.”
