While the author concluded the previous part of this write-up, the complex tri-partite negotiations among the US and Iran were going on with Pakistan playing as interlocutor. However, as the author had expressed serious apprehensions, the high-stakes peace talks between the two parties held in Islamabad on 11-12 April 2026, indeed, failed to be productive for ending the US-Israel and Iran war. The most obvious reasons for the failure of marathon twenty-one-hour talk brokered by Pakistan appears owing to the deep-seated mistrust, inflexible red lines regarding Iran’s ongoing nuclear program, and disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz among other things. It’s obvious that the failure to reach an agreement also enhances the risk of already announced two-week ceasefire into a serious jeopardy. In the following paragraphs, the author proposes to analyse the reasons for the failure of talks, world nations taking sides or remaining neutral, the role of important world organizations, economic fall out of the continued conflict in the West Asia, etc., and authors own views to resolve the issues.
Failure of the Islamabad Talks
There are certainly explicit as well as implicit reasons for the failure of talks which are briefly summarized as follows:
Explicit Reasons
The United States 15-point proposal contained many contentious issues and Iran’s own principled or otherwise stand on these points must have certainly contributed but some of the more important and immediate ones for the continued war are enumerated here.
- The US demanded a permanent halt to the Iranian uranium enrichment programme and an unambiguous commitment not to seek nuclear weapons while Iran viewed these demands as excessive and unreasonable, interfering with the sovereign rights of a nation. Yet another contentious issue of putting a curve on the range and development of ballistic and cruise missiles is also something Tehran would be unwilling to concede before an adversary. According to an emerging view, the US proposal was perceived more as a “trap” to force a surrender rather than a respectable peace deal.
- The present claim of Iran over the Strait of Hormuz and consequent control and blockage of the free passage for the merchant ships has become a significant point of conflict. It’s obvious that the existing differences between the negotiating parties could not be resolved due to Iran’s refusal or reluctance to forego its primary economic leverage. As of now, Iran has adopted hardline stances with its iron grip on the Strait of Hormuz and is in no hurry to compromise or make concessions on this subject.
- Another important reason, also a direct byproduct cause of the preceding two, is the prevailing extreme mistrust between the negotiating parties and peace broker as well. A crucial party Israel continues its attack on Hezbollah interests in Lebanon, they do not trust Pakistan, and are unlikely to accept any dictate even from the US if, in their view, it is likely to jeopardize their vital national interests.
Implicit Reasons (Unstated Factors)
In this author’s opinion, here are a few deeper, implied reasons, too, that could have operated beneath the surface and contributed for the failure of talks in the first round.
- The regional influence including Iran and its links with the militia/terror groups in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq. The US and Israel consider this an unholy alliance and recurring threat to the regional peace and neither side trusts the other’s long-term intentions.
- Both sides work under domestic political constraints: While the US administration fear backlash from the Congress and allies like Israel, in Iran the hardliners still having tight grip on administration and view compromise as capitulation. Considering geopolitical considerations, Iran’s increasing closeness with China and Russia, on one hand increase Americal discomfort, simultaneously reducing Iran’s keenness to reconcile.
- About the existing US sanctions, Iran insists an immediate and tangible relief in terms of defreezing their blocked assets while the US would want a gradual relief and concessions subject to verifiable and long-term compliance first. As mutual mistrust is deep-rooted, the US is likely to be suspicious of Iran buying time to fructify their nuclear capability while Iran may be weary of US reimposing sanctions later on.
- Third party influencers like Saudi Arabia and Israel certainly have stakes in shaping the shape outcomes because both have their security concerns in the context of Iran which could potentially force US positions to minimize flexibility or harden stand.
- For Iran, the control of Hormuz may not just be strategic but also a psychological leverage while for the rest of the world it’s a question of stoppage of the supply chain.
A crucial paradoxical part is the choice of country serving as facilitator between the warring countries. For the last many years, since the global al Queda terrorist Bin Laden was neutralized in by the US SEALs in 2011 who was hiding right under the nose of Pakistan military patronage in Abbottabad Cantt, the successive US regimes gave little or no attention to Pakistan. Only recently, Pakistan leadership, particularly the military strongman Field Marshal Asim Munir, has found a new fond patron in US President Donal Trump. A neutral country having good relations with the US, Israel and Iran would have been ideal choice but, apparently, Pakistan seems to be ideal one from President Trump’s perspective. Here the limiting factors are: 1) Pakistan does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation and later have made its mistrust about the former in unambiguous terms. While common religion of two countries may appear a uniting factor but Iran and Pakistan have several teething issues too, and the latter has even dispatched its troops and military equipment in support of Saudi Arabia. Islamabad may serve a venue for talks but it is unlikely that Pakistani leadership can play truly a facilitator of peace.
Position of Countries on West Asia War
The geopolitical situation as April 2026 on date is essentially a making of the fallout of nearly fourty days intense war hostilities followed by a temporary and fragile de-escalation of the West Asia War, that began on 28 February with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran. The region is in a state of high-tension “armed peace”, the position briefly explained in the following paragraphs.
A – Parties of Conflict: The US under the Trump administration has continued a stance of “Maximum Pressure 2.0,” with a revealed motive of destroying or degrading Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. While a two-week ceasefire with Iran began on April 8, the first round of peace talks failed, President Trump has now shifted focus toward a naval blockade, as announced 13 April, with an outcome in mind of the permanent opening of the Strait of Hormuz. Following a long spell of direct strikes on Iran and intense attacks on Hezbollah interests in Lebanon even while the peace talk was on in Islamabad, Israel has taken a 10-days pause on 16 April while committed to its primary objective of the elimination of immediate northern threats and the dismantling of Iranian regional proxies. On their part, Iran in spite of a severe damage and destruction of the military capabilities and infrastructure very roughly estimated as economic loss of the order of $145 billion and assassination of the top leadership, the country continues to use its control over the Strait of Hormuz as a primary lever though announced that the strait was for commercial vessels during the current Lebanon truce.
B – Organizations & Global Players:
1. The United Nations has advocated for a peaceful solution of dispute, stating that the Military action is not a solution. The Secretary-General Guterres has pressed for the full implementation of Resolution 1701 and freedom of navigation, and the UN as such is currently more focused on the massive humanitarian crisis and the spike in global food and fuel prices caused by the disruption of trade routes. However, hitherto fore this highest forum of the world nations has not been able to contribute any substantive worth to stop the war or resolve any issues.
2. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) could so far only offer a lip service and the member Islamic countries are themselves divided on the issues. The OIC has officially welcomed the ceasefire. It has continued to emphasize state sovereignty and has commended member states like Pakistan for their mediation roles, while calling for a permanent cease of hostilities in Gaza and Lebanon.
3. The US NATO Allies have generally been supportive of the US right of self-defense (more of a tactical point), they have condemned Iranian destabilization and expressed deep concerns about the global disruption of trade and energy security. However, neither any of the NATO members have so far joined the US-Israel war on Iran nor they supported it. Also, they have declined to join the US naval blockade of the Hormuz Strait region and favoured diplomatic solutions to avoid the collapse of the global trade. The position of four most powerful West European NATO allies is as under:
- The UK refused to join war and the UK Prime Minister has taken a leading role in convening a multinational mission of over a dozen countries to restore freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.
- Germany has transitioned from staunch, uncritical support of Israel to a more nuanced stance that includes calling for a permanent ceasefire, resuming only limited arms exports for defensive purposes, and emphasizing that Israeli security does not preclude criticism of its government’s actions in Gaza.
- France has explicitly ruled out their participation in any offensive military operations against Iran. However, President Emmanuel Macron has reaffirmed a defensive commitment to his Gulf and Levantine partners by deploying fighter jets and spearheading diplomatic efforts with the UK to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
- Italy is against participation in war as NATO ally; the country has called for the “humanitarian corridors” through the Strait of Hormuz to ensure the flow of essential goods like fertilisers to Africa, and supported joint European diplomatic initiatives aimed at stabilising the current ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza
Asian Giants:
1. Japan is not strictly neutral, and instead has followed a policy of calibrated ambiguity favouring an active diplomatic mediation to protect ita critical energy interests. Although Japan has a security alliance with the US, it has avoided explicit endorsement of US action or condemnation of its military operations. Japan’s position is understandable, as it relies on the Middle East for almost 90% of its crude oil. The Prime Minster of Japan has been critical of the closure of Hormuz and is believed to have been actively engaged in backchannel diplomacy between the US and Iran. Their primary focus appears to be on safeguarding Japanese nationals in the Middle East and diversifying oil sources and transport routes.
As for the Russia (Eurasia) and China (Asia), both largely hold a view that the West Asia War and consequence crisis is a direct result of the US interventionism in Iran. While Russia has a reputation of an erstwhile Superpower and China is an emerging next superpower as also main challenger to the American hegemony, both seek to align their efforts to reduce American influence in the region. Indirectly supporting Iran apparently through covert intelligence sharing and trade, they favour diplomatic mediation and ensuring stable energy supplies while generally maintaining anti-US stance.
China’s, in a nutshell, approach especially keeping in view Israel, Iran, and Arab states in the wider regional tensions, is largely driven by pragmatism, energy security, and a preference for stability over alignment. They have consistently called for the ceasefire, dialogue among the parties, and respect for sovereignty, thereby positioning itself as a neutral observer or mediator rather than a mere partisan actor. This approach is understandable in view of the Chinese strong economic and strategic ties with multiple states inter alia including the Belt and Road Initiative, and import of significant oil from the Gulf countries; so war escalation threatens its core interests. It has been helping Iran through trade and possibly covert intelligence inputs but it has also subtly leveraged the crisis to present itself as a responsible global player advocating multipolarity and non-interference, avoiding own deep military entanglement that may disrupt its geopolitical and economic priorities.
Russia’s overall stance on West Asia War is driven by strategic opportunism, security concerns, and an inherent desire to counterbalance the influence of the United States in the region. Moscow maintains working relationships with multiple states in the West Asia, including Israel, Iran, and key Arab states; hence foreseeing itself possibly as a flexible power broker while avoiding full alignment with any one side or state. Its military foothold in Syria gives it direct stakes in the regional stability, and it tends to support governments over non-state actors, emphasizing sovereignty and opposition to Western-led interventions. Its nuanced reactions and overt and covert actions in this reason are largely to reinforce its image as an indispensable player in global security, all while carefully managing escalation to avoid overstretch.
To put it in simple one line, both China and Russia, rather than providing direct military support, are utilizing diplomatic, economic, and covert logistical avenues to support Iran and counterbalance the US influence in West Asia.
India: All along during the current West Asian crisis, India has adopted a pragmatic neutrality and back-channel crisis management. On one hand, India and Israel have developed a special strategic partnership together over the last decade or so; on the other hand, India has robust trade and economic relationship with Iran, including its Chabahar port project. Accordingly, India has avoided naming Iran in its condemnations to protect its energy interests., and advocates for immediate de-escalation of hostilities, opt for a dialogue, and engage in diplomacy to resolve the West Asia conflict. Additionally, India emphasizes safe shipping of oil, fertilizers and other mercantile through gulf region including the Strait of Hormuz and safety and security of nearly ten million Indians staying in the Middle East. Needless to mention, almost 605 of India’s LPG imports are coming from the Gulf region, the Strait of Hormuz being a critical lifeline for its safe passage. Despite adverse effects on India’s economic and commercial interests, India has so far maintained a balanced diplomatic approach, stressing engagement with all sides to promote peace and stability.
Pakistan: Without mincing words, the author would state that Pakistan has emerged as a central messenger and mediator between the US and Iran during the current West Asia crisis, largely due to President Trump’s stance. This has certainly improved its image and standing within the OIC members and the world is earnestly hoping the next round of talks in Islamabad at an early date.
World Economic Fall Out & energy Crisis
The war has essentially manifested as a maritime and infrastructure crisis focused on the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf region. The closure of it by Iran in early March 2026 came as a supply shock to the whole world because it disrupted 20% of the world’s oil supply and nearly one-fifth of its Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Although Iran recently declared the Strait “open” during the current truce, the US military action and blockade further complicated and the traffic remains significantly par below the normal through this crucial energy chokepoint. Recent US and Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in the Gulf region have affected production capacity of several plants. For instance, the 18th March strike on Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG complex reduced its production capacity by 17%. According to the experts estimate, the complete repair of this damage might take 3 to 5 years, leading to tight gas markets for the foreseeable future.
Before the US-Israel War with Iran began on 28 February 2026, Brent crude was trading below $70 per barrel. Its prices surged more than 50% to above $120 per barrel in March driven by fall in supply, threat to the Strait of Hormuz and consequent shipping disruptions. The IMF had warned that unless the war stops, the price might soar to $125 to $150, and a sustained closure of the Hormuz could even push crude prices to an unprecedented $200-$300 per barrel. After the temporary ceasefire, the prices have eased to around $90 +/- as of 18 April 2026. The shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz caused a loss of eight-to-nine-million-barrel crude per day showing highly volatile situation with the tanker traffic slowing down through the waterways to a trickle, leading to a drastic shortage of oil and gas in global scenario. In this highly volatile situation, while a more stable country like India has so far manged well without showing inflationary trend, in many countries of the world including the prosperous West, the impact has been significantly felt by the common man.
The IMF and other financial institutions have issued stark warnings about the global fallout of a prolonged conflict, including slow growth, high inflation and lower GDP pushing towards a global recession/stagflation. In many countries, the supply of gasoline (petrol) has been adversely affected with the short supplies and price hike, consequent natural economic fall out on transportation cost, inflation and disposable income of the common man. The most affected regions with high prices and sharp spikes are the Southeast Asia such as Cambodia recorded price surge up to 68%, Philippines had to declare a national energy emergency, Vietnam and Laos showed a surge in prices up to 50% compelling government to order work-from-home. In Europe, the most affected countries are like Germany, Netherlands, Italy and France with price shocks. In South Asia, Pakistan had to resort to a four-day workweek for the government offices and Bangladesh ordered universities to close and commercial establishments to shut early to adapt to energy shortages. Situation in many African countries is also from bad to worse. Similarly, price trend has been noticed in air tickets too in many countries and stock exchanges have been widely fluctuating.
The current West Asia crisis is leading to the double-whammy i.e. that is the crisis has combined high inflation with stalling growth – a nemesis called stagflation. For instance, the central banks like European Central Bank and Reserve Bank of India have resorted to retain high interest rates to fight inflation, which is likely to supress economic growth to a considerable extent. Another adverse impact has been on supply chain of the petrochemical feedstocks of nations, this being scarce may in turn threaten the industries like pharmaceutical, semiconductors, etc. Yet another serious impact of war has been on food security in Gulf States. These countries rely on the Strait of Hormuz to a large extent of their food imports (estimated 80%); many of them experienced difficulty in “grocery management” during March and April with price hikes up to 120% for staples.
If the peace is nor established soon and war escalates again after the temporary ceasefire, this may have serious global impacts such as the industrial paralysis in the energy-intensive countries like China, Germany and Japan where several industries might partially run or face entire shutdown. It may have high impact on the aviation and shipping industry as the cost has already gone up for the jet fuel and diesel, and if the war continues, a need would arise for the restructuring of the global trade routes bypassing the Middle East which may further add massive cost to the global commerce. Several countries are already burdened with high sovereign debts and it is also likely that such countries with emerging markets are compelled to face sovereign defaults. Even a country like India which has so far manged well with the IMF indicating a rosy GDP growth forecast at 6.5% for 2026-27 is not likely to remain unaffected. Hence it in the interest of the global community to collective work for a permanent peace in the West Asia to avoid yet another global recession.
War: The Winners and Losers
There is no doubt that the United States is militarily the most powerful country in the world. Accordingly, on one hand, the loud-mouthed American President has time and again claimed a victory over Iran in the current war; on the other hand, the spokespersons of Iran, too, are claiming victory on their part. Now, if we look at the ground reality, the current West Asia war has precipitated in a landscape where term “victory” is used by governments and their leaders but actually felt by almost none on the ground. Notwithstanding fact that both the Washington and Tehran claim to have achieved their objectives, a sober analysis suggests that the true “winners” are none of the primary combatants, but to some extent it has strengthened their geopolitical rivals who played their cards rather cautiously yet gainfully on the sidelines. Let’s see how the aforesaid averment has applied to the stakeholders.
The United States, with it’s associate Israel, is claiming victory due to their largely one-sided dominance over the vast Iranian territory using their superior air power and projectiles, and in turn causing mass destruction and degradation of the adversary’s military capability and infrastructure. To be more specific, Washington claims victory by citing the degradation of Iran’s nuclear program, military capabilities and elimination of its top leadership. However, their failure to achieve the promised “regime change” or a democratic transition, which appeared their initial objective, raises a serious question and doubt on their victory claim. If we look at the Iran side, despite huge military and infrastructure losses, including the nuclear and naval infrastructure, and assassination of their top political and military leadership, their far more radical clerical establishment stays in political power. They successfully closed and controlled the Strait of Hormuz, still continue to offer stiff resistance to enemy with domestic resistance almost subsided. Therefore, the current situation or outcome appears more of a strategic stalemate rather than a victory for any party.
Seemingly, the real Geopolitical winners of this war appear to be the US adversaries the China and Russia for quite a few reasons. The US focus on Iran r West Asia in general has allowed Russia and China to expand their influence in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe, as many countries have began to doubt the reliability of American security guarantees following the latter’s failure to achieve the ground objectives of war. There are strategic reports that the war has drained US military resources and political capital, shaken NATO alliance shifting focus away from the Indo-Pacific, the European security and Ukraine war. Then the war triggered a global energy crisis with rising oil prices and it has provided Russia to sale oil and thereby augment their commerce and revenue. Thus, in a nutshell, Russia and China have a better opportunity to position themselves as stable alternatives to the US based Western leadership.
Now if we focus on the losers of war, the most tragic outcome in this author’s view is the casualty of the Iranian people’s reform movement thereby, in reality, the suppression of the Iranian people’s aspirations, more particularly the Iranian women. As is a historically proven fact, the reform movement, which was gaining momentum since late 2025, was effectively silenced under the guise of the “national security.” After the liquidation of the top leadership, the remnants of the Iranian leadership appear to be more militant and paranoid. If the reports filtering out are true, the executions of political prisoners have accelerated, and the state has utilized the war-time emergency to dismantle the networks that organized the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests. What is left for the common Iranians, is a shattered economy, food and daily consumables shortages due to the blockade, and an oppressive security apparatus.
Epilogue
The 2026 Iran War, which started in late February 2026 following a massive US-Israel military attack on Iran, has resulted in a devastating but inconclusive shift and uncertainties in regional balance. Some analysts also believe that beyond the official rhetoric of “nuclear red lines” and “regional defense,” more sophisticated economic motives too likely influenced the American decision to launch Operation Epic Fury on Iran. Briefly, these include the US desire to consolidate US energy dominance, defending the petrodollars, thwarting de-dollarization, military-industrial fiscal injection, and crippling the “Shadow Economy” regime of sanction-busting. After 40 days of intense alliance strikes that decimated nuclear infrastructure and estimated 60% of Iran’s missile capability as also the assassination of top leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the conflict has reached a fragile stalemate. Iran retaliated by targeting regional US bases, energy infrastructure of Arab nations and selectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global energy crisis and demonstrating that while its conventional military is crippled, its ability to inflict economic pain remains potent. As of 19 April 2026, a tenuous ceasefire declared by US President is in place, though it has been also undermined by a continued US naval blockade and ongoing skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
In essence, while the much touted “regime change” by the US never materialized, the war served to entrench the existing power structure in Iran in a more radicalized form, leaving the popular movement for reform further from its goals than at any point in the past. So, a permanent solution is not easy and requires a shift from military “regime change from the skies” toward a more comprehensive regional security framework that addresses the underlying drivers of the conflict. Undoubtedly, the measures should include a verifiable cessation of Iran’s nuclear enrichment and ballistic missile programs in exchange for the full lifting of economic sanctions and a formal end to the naval blockade. The nuclear armed radical or military controlled regimes are indeed very risky for the world peace. It is also crucial that the long-term peace should be planned with the integration of Gulf Arab states into a collective security pact that guarantees the freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and provides a clear roadmap for the disarmament of non-state proxies like Hezbollah and Houthis. Without a pragmatic diplomacy driven bargain that balances the Iranian sovereignty with the regional stability, any ceasefire would likely serve only as a brief intermission before a more catastrophic escalation in future.
82 total views, 82 views today
No Comments
Leave a comment Cancel