The second round of talks between Iran and the US have remained stillborn. The Iranian Foreign Minister left Islamabad on 25 April and the US negotiating team did not even leave the US. The situation remains frozen, though the ceasefire remains in place but Iran has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz while the US in retaliation has established a naval blockade in the Gulf. Both are wrong as they interfere with control of the so-called global commons. President Donald Trump remains averse to negotiating and the bulk of his communications are threats in in the form of social media posts. However, publicly insulting the other party is not the best way to go into talks.
The US demands are focused on the three pillars of Iran’s security, its nuclear ambitions, missile programme which now also includes drones and regional proxies. Iran’s position remains more circumscribed. It has apparently signalled willingness to limit enrichment temporarily, reduce stockpiles, and accept international monitoring in exchange for sanctions relief and unfreezing of its accounts. Missile forces and regional relationships were not on the table. Further, a second war in the middle of talks also made it imperative for Iran to demand a guaranteed, comprehensive non-aggression pact.
But another sticking point has now been added. The issue of the US naval blockade of Hormuz. While a ceasefire is essential to the extent that bombing has stopped but the blockade/closing of the Strait of Hormuz under relevant international law provisions is an act of war. The moot question is, how long can the blockade be sustained? Iran believes, and has stated this in so many words, that it can outlast pressure. There is a parallel in Afghanistan where the Taliban was able to absorb pain and then turned time into a strategic asset. Unfortunately, time is not a solution and it is a path towards deeper instability as the Strait of Hormuz is not a highway within a country in a remote mountainous region but a critical artery for the flow of global energy and a geopolitical lever of influence.
The world is being faced by three conflicts presently but all wars are not fought alike. The Ukraine War has been on for over four years, while the war in Gaza and Lebanon has been in place for over two years. In comparison the present Iran War is barely completing two months. Though Ukraine has exposed the bare armouries of European nations but the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the widening of the conflict by engaging targets in the Gulf have led to devastating ripples across the globe. When asked by a reporter on 20 March whether the US was at war, President Trump replied, “It depends on what your definition of war is. Also, I never said war. I said kinetic peace. Great phrase. Someone give me credit.”
Meanwhile, the next round of talks everyone was speculating about is not happening for the moment. If both sides believe the rising cost of conflict is unbearable, they will be ready for peace. If only one feels the cost is unbearable while the other retains the capacity to sustain losses, the stronger will press for surrender. The key question 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. That circles back to what Iran could concede, and to what extent.
WHERE DOES INDIA FIT?
Pakistan has been at the forefront of facilitating the peace talks. But the fact is that it lacks the heft to even bring the two negotiators to the peace table let alone enforce peace and also does not recognize Israel. The UN is unable to act as its hands are tied behind its back due to the “veto” rules India on the other hand along with China is the most affected by the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. It also enjoys strategic relations with all the principal actors such as the US, Israel and Iran. It has excellent relations with the Gulf States where there is a large Indian diaspora present and with whom it has trade relations. In other words, it enjoys a measure of trust across the board and more importantly its own interests are suffering due to the conflict. It possesses sufficient military capability and nuclear deterrence to command respect. While China remains reluctant to enter the fray directly it too has deep links with the region and the blockade of the Gulf is impacting both India and China as they are amongst the largest buyers of crude from this region. In fact, China is the biggest buyer of Iranian crude.
In this era of complex and intertwined interdependence both India and China need to focus on their aligned interests regarding reopening of the Straits of Hormuz. India holding the reins of BRICS presently is in a unique position not only to tell the US that “this is not an era for war” but also act in concert with China and pressurise both Iran and US regarding lifting the “dual blockade” and allowing the free flow of energy and goods. The consequences of a resumption of hostilities is terrifying.
India now needs to seize the moment and along with China pressurise both US and Iran to open the Strait. India fits this role perfectly. Its ties with the US cannot be at the cost of an economic toll of its people. In the end what matters is that national interests must override all other issues, and, presently, it is to obviate the economic fallout as a result of the “dual blockade” of the Strait of Hormuz. The only question is the method; “quiet diplomacy” or a “harder stance”.
- Maj Gen Jagatbir Singh, VSM, retired from the Indian Army.
