War & Diplomacy in Iran
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof of Practice, NIIS Group of Institutions)
It is said that war is a failure of diplomacy. This is eminently evident in the case of Iran which is perceived as a threat to Israel and danger to the Middle-East with its nuclearisation venture. But the failure of negotiations in Pakistan reverses the saying which should now read that diplomacy follows the defeat in a war. So, both war and diplomacy are at play in Iran. War may continue along with diplomatic posturing until one warring party is defeated.
On 28 February 2026, when Israeli F-35s and American B-2s hit Isfahan and Fordow, and a bunker-buster killed Ali Khamenei, the world entered a war it pretended it could avoid. Forty-six days later, we are not debating if there will be war. We are debating what kind of war this becomes, and why every off-ramp built in Pakistan keeps collapsing.
The short answer is, because the war’s aims were never negotiable, the diplomacy was never honest, and the man running it from Washington is not a diplomat. The longer answer is what Delhi, Beijing, Riyadh and Brussels must face: this ends only when one side’s system breaks. And Tehran, despite its defiance, is already signaling that break.
Why Pakistan failed? Talks were meant to end a war, not to win it. It was not to be. For five weeks Islamabad has played host, midwife, and message-boy. Vice President J.D. Vance flew in on 10 April. Iran sent 70 officials led by Speaker Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Araghchi. The optics were perfect: American and Iranian flags in the same room, Pakistani generals pouring tea. But the substance was not.
The US came with six “red lines”: zero enrichment, dismantle facilities, ship out 60 per cent enriched uranium, regional peace framework, cut off Hamas/Hezbollah, reopen Hormuz. Iran came with its 10-point plan: accept enrichment, lift all sanctions, pay for damages, Lebanon ceasefire included. The truth is harsher: Washington went to Pakistan to dictate surrender; Tehran went to buy time. After 21 hours of talks last weekend, there was no deal.
The reason of Pakistan’s failure is that it was mediating a war of “regime outcome”, not territory. Israel’s aim, as per analysts, is either “overthrow of the Iranian political system or pushing it to the brink of collapse”. You don’t negotiate the terms of your own funeral. You delay it, or you fight. Iran chose to delay.
The battlefield verdict is Iran is losing, but not saying so Trump says it bluntly: “Iran is in very bad shape… Their military is destroyed, their whole navy is underwater. One hundred fifty ships are gone”. Pentagon bravado aside, the data leans his way.
Iranian regime is calculating survival, not victory. Officials denied Trump’s claim that Iran “begged for a cease-fire”, but the denial itself was telling: “The Iranian nation… defends the essence of its homeland”. Not “we will win”. Not “we will push them to the sea”. Just “we defend the essence”. That is the language of a state husbanding its last arguments.
Even the succession tells the story. After Khamenei’s assassination on 28 February, his son Mojtaba was elected Supreme Leader on 8 March. Yet Israeli and US officials suggest the IRGC is “currently at the helm”. When the Praetorian Guard runs the palace, the war is already indoors.
Trump is the Anti-Diplomat-in-Chief. Diplomacy needs three things: patience, ambiguity, and a willingness to let the adversary save face. Donald Trump has none. On 7 April he posted: “There will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender!”. On 12 April: “I don’t care if they come back or not… If they don’t come back, I’m fine”. On Iran’s nuclear ask: “I don’t want them to feel like they have a win”.
This is not Nixon in China. This is a casino owner calling the other player’s bluff with the house’s money. Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio reportedly urged diplomacy first in January, but Trump’s instinct is ultimatum 8 p.m. deadlines. “A whole civilization will die tonight”. You can win a battle with that. You cannot write a treaty.
Worse, the war aims keep shifting. US officials have cited: imminent threat, pre-empting retaliation, destroying missiles, preventing nukes, securing natural resources, regime change. When your war has seven reasons, you have none. And your enemy knows it.
What lies ahead: Not Diplomacy vs War, but War, then Diplomacy. The two-week ceasefire of 8 April expires on 22 April. It has been violated by both sides. Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir is in Tehran today trying to “restart US talks”. The UN says talks will “highly probably” restart.
But restart to what end? Israel’s Foreign Minister Saar admits Iran’s government “could survive the war but expressed confidence it would collapse later”. Netanyahu told Israelis the aim is to help Iranians “cast off the yoke of tyranny” but added “it is up to them”. The interpretation of this message could be: we will bomb until they revolt, or until there is nothing left to rule.
Iran’s strategy, per Al Jazeera’s analysis, “is not aimed at winning the war outright but at ensuring that the costs of regime change become too high for its adversaries to bear”. That is a rational losing strategy. It worked for Hanoi in 1972. It will not work for Tehran in 2026, because the US is not fighting 10,000 miles from home. It is fighting in the Gulf, with 150 Iranian ships “gone” and gas at $4.11 a gallon.
So what comes next is both: war to set the terms, diplomacy to sign them. The “grand bargain” Vance mentioned will be dictated on the deck of a carrier, not a table in Islamabad. Iran will keep enrichment in theory, lose it in practice. The IRGC will keep Hormuz in rhetoric, lose it in reality. That is what “indirect admission of defeat” looks like in the 21st century.
India’s calculation is the Strait is her. Suez for India and the world, the lesson is cold. One-fifth of global oil passes through Hormuz. We import 60 per cent of our crude through it. When Trump blockades it and Iran mines it, India’s inflation is felt not in its foreign policy, but on the breakfast table.
Delhi has wisely let Pakistan mediate. We cannot be seen tipping the scales. But we must prepare for the day after. A collapsed Iran means a Sunni Gulf unchallenged, Balochistan destabilized, and China with a 99-year lease on Gwadar Port and a grievance. A victorious America means Caesarism as foreign policy. Neither is comfortable.
So, India’s line must be Ambedkar’s line: constitutional morality in international affairs. Rules, not rulers, freedom of navigation, not freedom to blockade. If Indians cheer when the US closes Hormuz to punish Iran today, New Delhi cannot complain when China closes Malacca to punish us tomorrow.
My wager is and it is a grim one: the editing will be done in Washington, with a red pen, and Tehran will initial each page. Because when your navy is “underwater”, your missiles are “down 90 per cent”, and your best mediator is on his third shuttlecock run to Islamabad, you are no longer negotiating. You are notifying.
The Iran war will end in conclusive defeat, not because Trump is a great general, but because he is a terrible diplomat, and Iran knows it. The only diplomacy left is the diplomacy of wreckage: how much of the state survives the signature. — INFA