by Col (Dr.) P K Vasudeva
The conflict between Iran and Israel is a long-standing ideological, political, and proxy war, intensified by Iran’s nuclear programme and its funding of anti-Israel militant groups (Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis). Israel views Iran's nuclear goals and threats as an existential danger, leading to direct military strikes, cyberattacks, and assassinations.
The recent attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran are part of a complex conflict, not just one single reason. The US and Israel say Iran is developing nuclear weapons capability (uranium enrichment + missile systems), which is a direct threat, especially to Israel. The stated goal of the strikes is to destroy Iran’s missile and nuclear infrastructure. Iran, however, says its nuclear programme is peaceful, which is a major point of dispute.
The US has also had tensions with Iran since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. So this war didn’t start suddenly—it’s been building for years. Iran has strong influence in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.). Israel especially wants to weaken Iran’s ability to support armed groups near its borders. There are ongoing negotiations about Iran’s nuclear programme and sanctions. These talks failed due to disagreements on nuclear limits and sanctions relief. After diplomacy stalled, tensions escalated into military action.
The Twelve-Day war (June 13-24, 2025) was an intensive, US backed Israeli military conflict against Iran, triggered by failed nuclear negotiations. Israel targeted military and Iranian Nuclear sites, assassinating leaders while the US engaged in Operation Midnight Hammer with cyber-attacks and nuclear sites at Fordow and Natanz with B-2 Bombers. Heavy casualties 1090 people, 400 civilians and 10,000sites damaged. The war concluded on June 24 2025 after a truce brokered by US and Qatar.
On 28 Feb, 2026, both countries launched large-scale coordinated strikes on Iran. Iran then retaliated with missile attacks on Israel and US bases in Gulf countries, turning it into a wider war. Israel’s leadership has openly said their goal is to stop Iran from ever getting nuclear weapons.
They also aimed to push back Iranian influence and prevent future attacks. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in a joint U.S.-Israeli airstrike in Tehran. The strike targeted high-ranking Iranian officials, causing significant damage and killing several senior leaders, including members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The primary goal was to neutralise Iranian offensive missiles, destroy missile production facilities and dismantle military infrastructure to prevent nuclear weapon development. As of April over 6000 Iranian military personnel were killed, 15,000 wounded and about 1,000 Hezbollah fighter killed.
One of the biggest impacts is global economic upheavals. Iran disrupted the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil route surge of oil prices and global inflation increased. The situation is similar to similar to the 1973 oil crisis, affecting economies worldwide. This war is a case study in 21st-century combat with the use of drones, AI targeting, and cheap mass weapons resulting in “Missile vs cheap drone” as a new defence strategy. This marks a shift from traditional warfare to asymmetric, tech-driven warfare. Future wars will likely follow this model.
Weakening global alliances have emerged resulting in strained international systems like NATO divisions and disagreements over support, declining public support for Israel in the US, and signalling possible decline of Western alliance unity. This could accelerate a shift toward a multipolar world order.
The situation looks confusing because war and diplomacy are happening at the same time. Here’s a clear, factual breakdown of why attacks happened even while “peace talks” were going on. The attacks actually started before real peace talks began.
Both sides did not trust each other. The US accused Iran of: advancing its nuclear programme supporting groups like Hezbollah and Iran accused the US and Israel of trying to weaken or change its regime not being serious about diplomacy. Some reports suggest the attack had been planned in advance, even while talks were ongoing.
The US And Iran Forwarded 15 And 10 Point Plans Respectively For Ceasefire.
US "15-Point" Ceasefire Plan (Main Demands) Are -
1. Dismantle major nuclear sites (Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan)
2. Permanent ban on nuclear weapons
3. No uranium enrichment inside Iran
4. Hand over enriched uranium to IAEA
5. Full international inspections (IAEA access)
6. Limit ballistic missile range and stockpile
7. Stop support to proxy groups (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis)
8. End funding and arming of militant groups
9. Implement regional & security conditions
10. Strait of Hormuz must stay open to global shipping
11. Accept Israel's right to exist (politically sensitive demand) Initial temporary ceasefire (e.g., 30 days) for negotiations
12. Long-term peace agreement after compliance
13. Incentives offered by US
14. Sanctions relief if Iran complies
15. Support for civilian nuclear energy (like Bushehr plant)
The US plan is very strict on nuclear + military limits, in exchange for sanctions relief and economic benefits.
Iran "10-Point" Ceasefire Plan
Iran's plan is almost the opposite approach of the US - focusing on sovereignty and ending pressure. Core demands are --
1. Permanent end to all attacks (not temporary ceasefire)
2. Guarantee of non-aggression against Iran
3. End attacks on Iran's allies (Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis)
4. Lift all US sanctions (primary + secondary)
5. Remove UN and international sanctions/resolutions
6. Release frozen Iranian assets
7. Compensation / reparations for war damage
8. US military withdrawal from the region
9. Iran keeps control/influence over Strait of Hormuz
10. Recognition of Iran's right to nuclear enrichment
Iran wants sanctions removed + security guarantees + recognition of its power, without giving up its core capabilities. Both the parties did not agree to in toto to each other’s demands.
In early April 2026, the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week, conditional ceasefire. This agreement was reached just hours (roughly under 2 hours) before a deadline set by Donald Trump for potentially massive military escalation against Iran. The deadline was tied to U.S. demands—especially that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz and meet other conditions.
The ceasefire didn’t happen spontaneously—it was brokered through last-minute diplomacy led by Pakistan, which urged both sides to pause and negotiate. Trump had threatened severe strikes if Iran didn’t comply. Iran signalled willingness to pause hostilities and allow maritime passage. Both sides agreed to a temporary halt to attacks to allow negotiations. The truce was extended and remained fragile, with ongoing tensions and military pressure continuing in the background.
Talks were hosted in Islamabad. Facilitated by the government of Pakistan Led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and senior military/diplomatic officials Pakistan’s role was crucial—it acted as a neutral intermediary, carrying messages, structuring negotiations, and trying to narrow gaps between the two sides.
United States delegation Led by senior officials appointed under Donald Trump Included Vice President J D Vance, accompanied by special envoy Steve Witcoff and advisor Jared Kushner who focused on nuclear, maritime, and security issues
Iranian delegation was led by Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and included Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, among other high-ranking national security and economic officials.
The marathon discussions lasted 21 hours between April 11-12, 2026, at the Serena Hotel in Islamabad, involving several rounds of direct and indirect talks but miserably failed.
The main failed points were -
• US lead negotiator JD Vance stated that Iran refused to meet conditions aimed at stopping its nuclear weapons capability.
• Iran demanded control over the strategic waterway and refused to accept US terms for its unconditional opening.
• The Iranian side accused the US of presenting "unreasonable" and "maximalist" demands.
Iran viewed U.S. demands as excessive, while the U.S. said Iran refused its “final terms.” Both delegations departed Islamabad without a memorandum of understanding (MoU), leaving the ceasefire at risk.
Immediately after that, the U.S. escalated pressure by launching a naval blockade of Iranian ports (April 13, 2026). This blockade targeted ships entering or leaving Iran, not all global shipping.
Iran had already been using the Strait as leverage, but after the blockade, it restricted or controlled passage. It warned that if its own exports were blocked, others wouldn’t pass freely. The attacks, seizures, and threats began against ships that created what analysts call a “dual blockade”.
Iran briefly allowed limited transit (around mid-April, tied to ceasefire dynamics). Within 24 hours, it closed the Strait again because the U.S. refused to lift its port blockade. Iran explicitly said the closure was a response to the U.S. blockade
Iran laid naval mines in the Strait as part of its strategy to deter or control shipping. Ships were even advised to follow specific safe routes to avoid mines. This made the Strait extremely dangerous commercially unusable for most global shipping.
The U.S. intercepted and redirected ships heading to Iran. It enforced the blockade with naval forces and began mine-clearing and surveillance operations as tensions escalated.
Donald Trump announced an extension of the ceasefire beyond the initial two weeks. But it wasn’t a formal permanent deal — it was open-ended and conditional. The ceasefire would continue until Iran agreed to U.S. terms or negotiations concluded.
Iran clearly stated that it would not continue talks or normalise the situation unless the U.S. lifted the naval blockade. It would not reopen the Strait of Hormuz while the blockade remained. Iran continues to reject negotiations unless the blockade ends.
Under international law (especially UNCLOS and laws of naval warfare): A naval blockade can be legal during an armed conflict, if certain conditions are met (declared, proportionate, non-discriminatory). However, many legal experts and countries argue the broader U.S. actions may violate the UN Charter or freedom of navigation principles. Both the countries are exercising pressures as under.
U.S. strategy: Ceasefire + blockade = pressure Iran to concede
Iran’s strategy: Strait closure + refusal to negotiate = counter-pressure
Both sides are technically “in ceasefire” but still applying economic and maritime warfare
On 25th April Abbas Araghchi (Iran’s foreign minister) visited Islamabad primarily to meet Pakistani mediators — not the U.S. directly. Iran explicitly ruled out direct talks with the United States during this visit. He conveyed Iran’s position and conditions through Pakistan, acting as an intermediary. Iran’s three core preconditions included: Lifting of the U.S. naval blockade on Iranian ports, end to military pressure / guarantees against further attacks, and respect for Iran’s strategic interests (including nuclear and regional issues). These were presented as a framework for restarting talks, not as a final agreement.
Iran’s delegation left Islamabad for Oman before any U.S. officials arrived or met them. Planned U.S. envoys (like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner) never actually held talks. In fact, Donald Trump cancelled the U.S. delegation’s trip altogether after seeing Iran’s stance.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi met with President Vladimir Putin in St. Petersburg on April 27 as he seeks support from Moscow amid a flurry of diplomacy aimed at bringing an end to the war with the United States and Israel. Putin told Araghchi, who arrived from Oman earlier in the day, that Russia was ready to do "everything that serves your interests, the interests of all the people of the region, so that peace can be achieved as soon as possible."
The Kremlin leader also praised the Iranian people for "fighting for their independence and sovereignty" in the face of U.S.-Israeli attacks, which have killed more than 3,000 people in Iran. "Russia, just like Iran, intends to continue our strategic relationship," Putin said in comments carried by Russian state media.
The U.S. has deployed three aircraft carrier strike groups: USS Gerald R. Ford, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS George H.W. Bush that’s one of the largest naval buildups in decades. It includes: 200 aircraft 15,000 personnel Marines and amphibious forces This is maximum pressure posture, not yet full war.
The US has accused China of supplying missile-related materials to Iran. However, China has officially denied sending weapons but the focus is on economic lifelines and tech/intelligence support. Factually, China is supplying missiles, drone and other sophisticated defence equipment to Iran in large quantity.
Based on current reporting: Trump is applying extreme pressure (blockade + military build-up) but also still pushing for negotiations. This is coercive diplomacy, and not rush to war.
If a prolonged standoff blockade continues. Iran disrupts Hormuz intermittently and there is no full war. Medium risk is limited strikes, targeted U.S. attacks on Iranian naval/missile sites and Iran retaliates regionally. Low probability: Full-scale war would require massive escalation or miscalculation. Neither the U.S., China, nor Russia currently wants this.
The continued US blockade of Iranian ports and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is driving a severe global economic crisis. With 20% of global oil and LNG shipments stalled, crude prices have exceeded $120 per barrel, prompting International Monetary Fund (IMF) warnings of a global recession, fuel shortages, and rising fertilizer prices, severely impacting Asian nations and supply chains.
The author is a Defence Analyst and Commentator. He is also for Professor International Trade. Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of IDN
