If diplomacy is theatre, then Islamabad right now looks less like a negotiating table and more like a stage where nobody is entirely sure whether the actors will even show up.
Hotels emptied, roads sealed, and delegations “expected”. And yet, the central question remains unanswered: are there actually going to be talks?
That uncertainty is not incidental. It is the story.
On one side, Washington insists negotiations are imminent. On the other, Tehran signals reluctance, denial, or conditional participation depending on which official, or which hour, you listen to.
Even as US Vice President JD Vance prepares to travel, Iran’s state media hints the talks may not happen at all.
Meanwhile, analysts cautiously suggest Tehran might still attend. In short: everyone is preparing for talks that may or may not exist.
And hovering over this confusion is a fresh provocation: the US seizure of an Iranian-flagged vessel in the Gulf of Oman, an act that almost seems designed to sabotage the very diplomacy Washington claims to be pursuing.
Tehran has promised retaliation. Analysts warn the move could “torpedo” talks. Yet the talks are still, theoretically, on. If this feels incoherent, that’s because it is.
At the heart of this confusion sits Donald Trump, a man whose Iran policy currently resembles a geopolitical version of mood swings.
Within a span of days, Trump has:
• Claimed Iran has “agreed to almost everything”
• Threatened to “blow up” the country if it doesn’t sign a deal
• Suggested Hormuz would never again be weaponised
• Then reacted furiously when Iran weaponised Hormuz
Meanwhile, his administration oscillates between diplomacy and escalation, sending negotiators one moment, seizing ships the next.
Even Iran, hardly a model of consistency, has seized on this. Its official justification for pulling out of talks? “Constant shifts in stance, repeated contradictions, and unrealistic expectations.”
That’s a fairly accurate description of the current US approach.
Diplomacy depends on signalling credibility. If threats are not carried out, they weaken deterrence. If offers are constantly revised, they erode trust. Trump’s pattern of maximalist threats followed by tactical retreats has created a paradox: escalation without clarity.
Or, to put it less politely, everyone is now negotiating with a moving target that occasionally shouts.
Pakistan’s role adds another layer of irony. Islamabad has locked down its diplomatic enclave, cleared hotels, and rerouted traffic—essentially rolling out the red carpet for negotiations that may not exist.
Pakistan, of course, stands to gain enormously if talks succeed. But right now, it risks looking like the host of a summit where the guests are still arguing about whether they RSVP’d.
Strip away the noise, and three plausible pathways emerge. None are especially comforting.
Scenario 1: Escalation into a Regional Energy War
This is the nightmare scenario and increasingly plausible.
If talks collapse (or never materialise), Trump may feel compelled to act on his threats. A US strike on Iranian infrastructure, energy, military, or all three would trigger immediate retaliation.
Iran’s strongest card is the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran has already demonstrated its willingness to disrupt shipping. It understands that nearly a fifth of global oil flows through that narrow corridor. Closing or even partially choking it sends shockwaves across global markets.
In response to US escalation, Iran would likely:
• Intensify attacks on shipping
• Target Gulf energy infrastructure
• Expand proxy operations across the region
The result? A multi-front regional war.
Global impact
• Oil prices could surge beyond previous peaks
• Shipping insurance and transit costs would skyrocket
• Inflation would ripple across economies worldwide
South Asia impact
India, importing over 80% of its crude, would be hit hard and fast. Energy costs would spike, the rupee would come under pressure, and inflation would surge. Supply chain disruptions in the Arabian Sea would directly affect trade flows.
There is also a human dimension: millions of Indian workers in the Gulf would face displacement risks if conflict spreads.
Pakistan, meanwhile, would face internal instability, particularly given sectarian sensitivities and its proximity to the crisis.
Scenario 2: A Face-Saving Diplomatic Deal
This is the optimistic outcome, though “optimistic” here is doing some heavy lifting.
Despite the chaos, both sides have incentives to de-escalate:
• Iran’s options are limited under blockade pressure
• Trump, facing domestic criticism, needs a “win”
A deal would likely involve:
• Limited sanctions relief or easing of blockade measures
• Iranian concessions on uranium enrichment levels
• Reopening of Hormuz under some form of monitored regime
Both sides would claim victory. Neither would fully believe it.
Global impact:
• Immediate stabilisation of energy markets
• Relief for global shipping and trade
• Temporary reduction in geopolitical risk
South Asia impact:
India would benefit significantly: resumed trade flows, stable oil prices, and strategic flexibility in sourcing energy.
Pakistan would emerge diplomatically strengthened, having hosted talks, assuming they actually occur.
But the key word here is temporary. A deal built on mutual mistrust and political theatrics is unlikely to endure.
Scenario 3: Prolonged Stalemate and Managed Chaos
Perhaps the most likely outcome—and the most insidious.
Neither full war nor real peace, this scenario involves:
• Continued US naval blockade
• Iranian harassment of shipping
• Periodic escalations without decisive conflict
In effect, a slow-burning crisis.
Iran may continue experimenting with its “toll booth” model in Hormuz—extracting economic leverage without fully closing the Strait. The US, meanwhile, maintains pressure without crossing into full-scale war.
Global impact
• Persistently high energy prices
• Chronic shipping disruptions
• A new normal of geopolitical risk
South Asia impact
India faces long-term economic strain—higher import costs, disrupted maritime routes, and strategic pressure to take sides.
Pakistan deals with ongoing internal tensions and the constant risk of spillover.
This is the scenario where nothing explodes—but everything slowly erodes.
The Bigger Problem: No One Is Driving
What makes the current situation uniquely dangerous is not just the tension, it’s the absence of coherence.
Iran is playing a familiar game: leverage, delay, pressure. It is rational, if adversarial.
The United States, however, is oscillating between strategies without committing to one. Diplomacy, coercion, and deterrence are all in play, but none are consistently applied.
And that is where Trump’s approach becomes more than just erratic; it becomes destabilising.
As one analyst noted, Washington is simultaneously threatening escalation and seeking resolution. Those two signals do not cancel each other out; they amplify uncertainty.
In geopolitics, uncertainty is rarely neutral. It invites miscalculation.
So here we are: a world waiting for talks that may not happen between parties that don’t trust each other, mediated by a country staging preparations for a diplomatic event that exists mostly in the conditional tense.
It would be farcical if it weren’t so dangerous.
The coming days, especially with the ceasefire expiring, will determine which of the three paths the crisis takes.
But one thing is already clear: confusion is no longer a by-product of the crisis. It is now one of its defining features.
And in a region where oil, shipping, and security intersect so tightly, confusion is not just inconvenient. It is combustible.
