Twenty-five days after a rapidly escalating war engulfed Washington, Tehran, Jerusalem and the Gulf capitals, the Middle East is already in the grip of a regional conflict with global consequences. America-Israel attacked Iran Israel and the Gulf states have faced a wave of Iranian missile and drone attacks, turning vital sea lanes into a battlefield and energy markets into a rollercoaster.
In this background, US President donald trump has suddenly put diplomacy back on the table – but only for five days, and back-channel messengers are quietly shuttling between capitals as US marines get into position.
diplomacy under the gun
talking with Hindustan Times Executive Editor Shishir Gupta At HT’s point blank, Senior anchor Ayesha Verma It started with the question many are asking: Why talk about diplomacy now, when neither side seems to be backing down?
Gupta pointed out that backstabbing diplomacy is already underway, with interlocutors taking turns in the role – first Turkey, Egypt and Oman, and now Pakistan emerging as a new mediator seeking relevance with the big powers. But is it the right lens?
According to Gupta, Trump’s turn to diplomacy is driven less by a battlefield shock and more by an economic shock coming from the Gulf. Pressure on Washington is increasing due to rising energy costs.
Iran has effectively “strangled” strait of hormuz and the broader Persian Gulf-Gulf of Oman corridor, selectively allowing ships through only after peaceful understandings, often via countries such as India or China. With oil and LPG prices rising and shortages increasing, Washington is facing a serious energy crisis that could have a chilling effect on the global economy – a pressure point that even the White House cannot ignore, especially as other countries come demanding answers.
Trump has publicly said that he is giving five days to diplomacy. Gupta points out that those same five days are also the days when two US amphibious assault ships – USS Tripoli and USS Boxer – will be fully deployed around the Gulf of Oman with about 5,000 Marines on board.
He argues that that posture retains the option of “boots on the ground,” even if Washington brandishes the olive branch. The message from Washington is this: If diplomacy does not work, war is the only option.
A regime that will not bend
If the US is oscillating between negotiation and force, Iran is signaling that it is nowhere close to being exhausted.
Gupta stressed that there is “hardly any sign of regime collapse” and that Tehran has not yet used the key tools in its arsenal – naval mines and explosive-laden boats.
To understand why Iran isn’t blinking, Gupta urges viewers to look at the country’s political psychology. Those now in their late 40s or 50s are Ayatollah Khomeini’s “children of the revolution” – generations steeped in slogans of “death to America, death to Israel” and a martyrdom-centric worldview that glorifies martyrdom as the highest achievement.
In their narrative, Iran sees itself as a victim and regards sacrifice in conflict not as a value, but as a virtue.
This ideological base is reinforced by a harsh security apparatus – the IRGC, the Quds Force and the Basij – and a regime that Gupta calls categorically non-democratic and willing to commit “Tiananmen” if faced with mass protests. This combination makes internal rebellion unlikely and suggests that Tehran will “keep firing as long as they can”.
In contrast, he portrays the United States as a democracy that fights for “body bags”, prefers standoff weapons and often believes in painless regime change without understanding the societies in which it intervenes, as is the case in Afghanistan.
The result, Gupta predicts, is a grinding pattern: Both sides will continue firing, then move toward negotiations, and the conflict may not end decisively, gradually “ending” after mutual concessions.
Iran’s reach: Diego Garcia and beyond
Recently Iranian missile attack on US-UK base was reported diego garcia It underlines how far Tehran is willing – and capable – to reach.
Gupta says Iran fired two Khorramshahr-class missiles at the base: one failed en route, and the other was intercepted by a US SM-3 (Standard Missile-3) interceptor over the central Indian Ocean.
While many in the West still consider Iran’s ballistic capabilities limited, Indian security assessments cited by Gupta put Iran’s missile reach at up to 4,000 km, bringing parts of Europe, most of India, the southern Indian Ocean and large parts of Africa within range.
Along with missiles, Iran has also invested heavily in long-range drones such as the Shaheed-136 and the more advanced Shaheed-4. These relatively cheap platforms have proven so effective that both Russia and the United States have reverse-engineered them, even as they often have to be shot down by interceptors costing millions of dollars – thereby bringing another meaning to the phrase “cost of war”.
This asymmetry, Gupta warns, is central to the “key concern” about Iran: a committed regime with a growing inventory of ballistic missiles and advanced drones, whose full remaining arsenal is unknown, presents a persistent, difficult-to-deterrent threat.
A threat that the US and Israel consider necessary to eliminate as quickly as possible, as underlined by the preemptive strikes.
Pakistan’s far-reaching ambitions – and India’s restraint
then the conversation moves on PakistanFollowing US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard’s testimony that Islamabad has the capability to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Gupta says such a statement would be based on intelligence assessment, not personal speculation.
Pakistan is already working on, or has developed, the Ababil MIRV missile, which can carry multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles and Shaheen-2-like systems to a range of about 2,700 km. It also puts India’s remote Andaman and Nicobar Islands within reach, reflecting Pakistan’s fear that Indian missiles could be deployed from there.
With Chinese assistance, Islamabad is continuously expanding its nuclear options, using weapons ranging from one ton to several kilotons.
Gupta says Pakistan could extend its reach to about 4,000 km – the intermediate-range ballistic missile bracket – potentially putting Diego Garcia, parts of Europe and US bases in the Gulf and Central Asia at theoretical risk.
The reason for India not joining Gabbard’s warning, he suggests, lies in principle: India maintains a clear “no first use” nuclear policy, while Pakistan has a clear first use posture. China also claims “no first use”, although it has not repeated this in recent years – a sign that alarm bells may ring in the future.
India’s Rope: Energy on Mediation
On the question of whether India can or should play a peacekeeping role in this conflict, Gupta says clearly: “This is not India’s war”.
According to him, New Delhi is suffering economically rather than combatively, the primary manifestation of which is through energy prices and supply security.
India has consistently called for “restraint, peace and dialogue” – as it has done on Ukraine – while focusing on meeting its oil and gas needs.
Although India maintains open channels with all major players from Washington and Tehran to Gulf capitals, Gupta says no one has formally asked New Delhi to intervene or mediate. For now, he believes India’s priority should be to protect its economy rather than getting itself into a volatile, multi-player war.
Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s economic weapon
Nowhere is the intersection of military pressure and economic pain more evident than in the Strait of Hormuz.
Gupta describes a “war theatre” where Indian oil and LPG tankers sit under constant missile and drone fire waiting for safe passage, their crews so worried that Indian warships in the Gulf of Oman maintain constant radio contact to reassure them.
He says Iran is deliberately using the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Persian Gulf as an economic weapon to force the US and Israel to negotiate.
Hardly any ships proceed without IRGC approval, and escort by foreign warships is not permitted. Decentralized IRGC units increase the risk that a rogue commander could decide to open fire at any time.
Brent crude has already risen to $119 a barrel and is hovering around $100, with Iran promising to push it higher through long-range missiles and drones.
Exacerbating the crisis, Yemen’s Houthi rebels have threatened to target shipping in the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, raising the possibility of a “double band” of disruption that could block both vital maritime arteries to West Asia.
If that happens, Gupta warns, oil prices and all oil-related costs could soar worldwide, turning Iran’s strategy into a full-scale economic war against the US and its allies.
Gulf allies caught in the crossfire
If Iran, the US and Israel are the major rivals, the Sunni Gulf monarchies are, in Gupta’s words, “collateral damage” of this war.
Every Gulf Cooperation Council country has been attacked by Iranian missiles or drones, with Tehran justifying its attacks by pointing to its support for the US campaign.
Nearly 3,500 Iranian projectiles have struck across the Gulf, targeting not only military sites but also civilian infrastructure and vital oil facilities in places such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Iraq.
These economies – which were focused on development goals ranging from the development of Dubai and Sharjah to Saudi Arabia’s ambitious diversification plans – are now finding themselves paying the price of hosting US bases.
Politically, Gupta believes it will force a reckoning. Gulf capitals will begin to question whether the US will remain a reliable security guarantor when they are bearing such a high cost.
At the same time, he also sees the possibility of the Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, uniting on a common defensive – and perhaps offensive – front, to ensure that they would have their own means of deterrence and retaliation if Iran continued aggression.
Given that Iran has not yet backed down, this is a likely scenario.
Ultimately, Gupta’s assessment is that the conflict could be protracted because of unequal risk appetite, deep ideological commitments, and a dangerous entanglement of missiles, markets, and maritime chokepoints.
He suggests whether Trump’s five-day diplomatic gambit can meaningfully change that trajectory will depend less on statements in Washington and more on how far Tehran believes it can stretch the world’s energy lifelines before the costs become unbearable for everyone involved.
