“Power is not proven by war alone; it is proven by who can stop a war on their own terms.”
THE ceasefire that brought a halt – however temporary – to the escalating confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States was neither accidental nor purely humanitarian. It was the outcome of a layered geopolitical contest in which power was exercised not only through weapons, but through positioning, alliances, and calculated restraint. To reduce this ceasefire to routine diplomacy would be to misunderstand its deeper significance. It represents a shift in who shapes outcomes in global crises – and how.
At the centre of this moment stands Iran. Any serious analysis must begin by acknowledging that Iran was not a passive party reacting to external pressure. It was the principal architect of the conditions that made a ceasefire unavoidable. Over the course of the escalation, Iran demonstrated both military capability and strategic patience. Its calibrated strikes and signalling—particularly in and around critical maritime zones linked to the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply transits – sent an unmistakable message. This was not a conflict that could be contained within neat geographic limits. It had the potential to disrupt global energy markets, destabilise economies, and trigger wider confrontation.
Oil prices, already volatile, surged in response to these developments, with benchmarks reportedly rising by over ten percent during peak escalation periods. Insurance premiums for shipping through the Gulf spiked sharply, and major shipping firms began rerouting vessels, adding both cost and delay to global trade. These are not marginal effects. They constitute systemic pressure. Iran understood this and leveraged it with precision. It did not seek a full-scale war; it sought to make the cost of war unacceptable.
This is where Iran’s strategy reveals its sophistication. It combined deterrence with diplomacy. While projecting the capacity to escalate, it simultaneously communicated clear conditions for de-escalation. These included respect for its sovereignty, the easing of sanctions pressures, and an end to targeted military provocations. This dual-track approach altered the negotiating landscape. It forced adversaries to engage not from a position of dominance, but from one of constraint.
The United States, led by Donald Trump, found itself navigating a narrowing corridor of options. Domestically, there were economic pressures linked to rising fuel costs and market instability. Internationally, there was growing unease among allies about the risks of a broader war. Militarily, the prospect of engaging Iran across multiple fronts—with potential spillover into Iraq, Syria, and the Gulf—presented a scenario that could not be easily controlled. The ceasefire, therefore, was not an act of goodwill. It was a strategic necessity.
Israel’s role in this escalation must be read within its broader regional ambitions. Under Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has pursued an aggressive security doctrine that extends beyond immediate threats to encompass a wider vision of regional dominance. This has often been interpreted as part of a longer-term project to reshape the Middle East in its favour—a project that critics describe as aligned with the idea of a “Greater Israel.” Whether articulated explicitly or not, this ambition has driven a pattern of pre-emptive strikes, territorial assertions, and an uncompromising approach to perceived adversaries.
Yet the events leading to the ceasefire expose the limits of such a strategy. Military superiority does not automatically translate into political control. Iran’s ability to absorb pressure while imposing costs in return disrupted the assumption that escalation would yield unilateral advantage. Instead, it created a situation in which continued conflict risked undermining Israel’s own security and economic stability.
While Iran set the strategic tempo, the translation of that pressure into a ceasefire required diplomatic channels. This is where Pakistan enters the frame—not as a peripheral actor, but as a critical intermediary. Under Shehbaz Sharif, Pakistan assumed a role that combined facilitation with credibility.
Pakistan’s involvement was not theatrical. It did not seek visibility for its own sake. Instead, it operated through sustained engagement with both regional and global actors, enabling communication at a time when direct dialogue between adversaries was politically fraught. Reports indicate that initial ceasefire frameworks were transmitted through Pakistani diplomatic channels, with Islamabad emerging as a potential venue for follow-up negotiations.
What enabled Pakistan to perform this role effectively was not power in the conventional sense, but trust. Its longstanding position on West Asian issues, its refusal to recognise Israel, and its consistent rhetorical and diplomatic support for Muslim-majority causes have positioned it as a credible actor within key international groupings such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. In moments of crisis, such credibility becomes invaluable. It allows a state to act as a bridge, to carry messages, to reduce miscalculation.
Pakistan’s international messaging during the crisis was notably coherent. Its statements aligned with its diplomatic actions. There was no visible contradiction between what it said and what it did. This coherence strengthened its standing and allowed it to function as a mediator without being perceived as partisan.
China and Russia, meanwhile, played roles that were less visible but structurally significant. China approached the crisis through the lens of economic stability. As the world’s largest importer of energy, China has a direct stake in the uninterrupted flow of oil from the Gulf. Its diplomatic interventions were therefore aimed at de-escalation, leveraging its relationships with Iran and other regional actors to encourage restraint.
Russia, with its deep strategic footprint in West Asia, adopted a complementary approach. It maintained communication with multiple parties, reinforcing the message that escalation would not serve long-term interests. Both countries, in effect, provided Iran with strategic backing—ensuring that it was not isolated—and thereby strengthening its negotiating position.
The ceasefire that emerged from this convergence was structured as a limited-duration truce, reportedly spanning approximately two weeks, with provisions for extension contingent on progress in negotiations. Such short-term ceasefires are not uncommon in conflict scenarios. What is significant here is the context in which it was achieved. It was not imposed by a dominant power. It was negotiated within a multipolar framework where different actors contributed in distinct ways.
It is in this context that India’s absence becomes analytically significant. Under Narendra Modi and guided by Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India has projected itself as an emerging global power with the capacity to mediate international conflicts. There has been no shortage of rhetorical ambition. From suggestions of involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict to speculative narratives about a role in West Asian crises, India’s self-image as a potential mediator has been actively cultivated.
The Iran ceasefire exposes the gap between aspiration and reality.
India was not part of the mediation process. It was not a facilitator, not a convenor, and not a significant interlocutor. This absence is not merely a diplomatic oversight. It is the consequence of policy choices that have reshaped India’s international positioning. A few so-called experts from the USA, even suggested India as a possible mediator because of its close relations with Iran and Israel. They did not understand the political dynamics of the region. Being American distances one from cultural facts.
India’s deepening strategic alignment with the United States and Israel has altered perceptions of its neutrality. Defence cooperation with Israel has expanded significantly over the past decade, with India emerging as one of the largest importers of Israeli military technology. During periods of active conflict involving Israel, such engagements carry political implications. They create the impression—whether intended or not—that India is aligned with one side.
This perception is further reinforced by the visible political proximity between Modi and Netanyahu. In international diplomacy, optics matter. Images of camaraderie, public endorsements, and strategic partnerships all contribute to how a country is perceived. When these images align consistently with one side of a geopolitical divide, they constrain the country’s ability to position itself as an impartial mediator.
Jaishankar’s dismissal of the idea that India acts as a “dalal” in international diplomacy must be understood within this context. The very need to reject such a characterisation suggests an awareness of how India’s actions are being interpreted. Yet the contradiction remains unresolved. A state cannot simultaneously supply arms within a conflict ecosystem and claim neutrality in its resolution without facing questions of credibility. Pakistan was not being a ‘dalal’. That is the story of ‘sour grapes’ from Jaishankar whose track record as EAM has not impressed political thinkers and analysts. He could never achieve the role of mediator even if he coveted it. That is a role that obliges humility, not snobbery, misplaced humour, and triviality.
Pakistan, by contrast, has avoided this contradiction in the present scenario. Its policy, rhetoric, and diplomatic engagement have been aligned. This alignment has allowed it to occupy a space that India, despite its greater economic and geopolitical weight, has been unable to secure.
The broader implication of the ceasefire lies in what it reveals about the changing nature of global power. The era in which a single or even a small group of Western powers could dictate the terms of conflict resolution is increasingly giving way to a more complex, multipolar system. In this system, influence is distributed. It is exercised through networks, alliances, and strategic positioning.
Iran’s role in forcing the ceasefire underscores the importance of regional power backed by strategic depth. Pakistan’s role highlights the value of credibility and coherence in diplomacy. China and Russia’s involvement demonstrate the growing significance of non-Western powers in shaping global outcomes.
The United States remains a dominant actor, but its ability to impose unilateral solutions is increasingly constrained. The ceasefire is a case in point. It reflects not American initiative, but American adjustment to a changing reality.
Israel’s ambitions, particularly those aligned with expansionist visions, encounter similar constraints. Military power, while formidable, is no longer sufficient to guarantee political outcomes. Resistance, when combined with strategic alliances and global pressure, can alter the trajectory of conflict.
The ceasefire, therefore, is not an endpoint. It is a pause—a fragile, conditional moment in a longer संघर्ष. But it is also a signal. It signals that the architecture of global diplomacy is shifting. It signals that new actors are asserting themselves. And it signals that credibility, more than rhetoric, determines who gets to shape outcomes.
For India, the lesson is stark. Diplomatic relevance cannot be performed. It must be earned through consistency, clarity, and the alignment of principle with practice. Until that alignment is achieved, India’s aspirations to global mediation will remain aspirational—visible in rhetoric, absent in reality.
In the final analysis, the Iran ceasefire was not delivered by those who spoke the loudest, but by those who understood the balance of power and acted within it. Iran compelled. Pakistan connected. China and Russia stabilised. The United States adjusted. Israel recalibrated.
And India watched.
____________________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
