I Ahmad Wani
When I wrote on April 13 that the Islamabad talks had collapsed, I added one careful note: in diplomacy, failure is rarely the end. It’s usually just the beginning of the next round. Eleven days later, that next round has come — and it looks much darker.
The chairs kept for JD Vance and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf at Islamabad’s Serena Hotel are still empty. Both sides were supposed to come. Neither showed up. For the second time in two weeks, Pakistan has set the table for a big diplomatic meeting only to find that the guests have simply not turned up. The tablecloth is clean, the plates untouched, and the silence in that hall says more than any official statement could.
The reasons for this fresh collapse are no longer hidden. While talking of peace in public, Washington slapped a naval blockade on Iranian ports and stuck to its hardline stand. Tehran hit back, calling the blockade a clear violation of the ceasefire. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said it straight — no sugar-coating. At the same time, the US Navy seized an Iranian vessel in the Gulf of Oman. In plain language, this is provocation. Washington calls it “pressure”.
Donald Trump, in his usual style, refused to lift the blockade but still demanded that Iran come back to the table. “Iran has no choice but to talk,” he said, sounding like a man who has never heard the word ‘no’. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent calmly pointed out that Iran’s oil storage at Kharg Island is filling up fast — not as a worry, but as a weapon. This mix of offering talks with one hand while squeezing with the other has not gone unnoticed in Tehran or anywhere else that matters.
Pakistan set the table twice. Neither Washington nor Tehran sat down. The real loss is not just to these two powers — it is to the whole idea of mediation itself.
In my last piece, I had pointed out that presenting Pakistan as some big diplomatic heavyweight in this crisis was not matching the ground reality. Quite a few friends on Facebook came down heavily on me. They criticised it widely, gave me long lectures on diplomacy, diplomatic developments, and how things work at the international level. Some even tried to teach me lessons as if I had missed some obvious truth. But look at what has happened now — the reality is unfolding exactly as I had written. The empty chairs in Serena Hotel are proof enough. I stand by what I said then, and I stand by it even more strongly today.
The real question we should ask is this: why did Washington pick Pakistan as mediator in the first place?
It was not out of any special friendship. It was pure calculation.
America chose Pakistan not despite its weaknesses, but because of them. Islamabad talks loudly but lacks the real strength to press either side for answers. A tougher mediator like Turkey, China or the United Nations would have pushed back hard. Turkey would have argued, China would have set conditions, and the UN would have kept records. Pakistan cannot do any of that. Its heavy dependence on IMF loans, the shadow of FATF, and its own internal problems force it to stay quiet. Washington knew this very well and used it.
So when America decided to skip the meeting and keep up its pressure tactics, it faced no real objection from the host. Pakistan simply did not have the power to protest.
Pakistan was not picked to make the talks succeed. It was picked to take the blame when they failed.
Iran is not without fault either. Soon after the ceasefire was extended, the Revolutionary Guard hit at least three commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian adviser openly called the extension “meaningless” — a strange thing to say when this very ceasefire is the only thing standing between the current situation and possible American airstrikes. Tehran’s moves show a leadership that is tired, angry, and not thinking straight.
The ceasefire extension announced by Donald Trump on April 21 was presented as a big win, with claims that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and General Asim Munir had personally helped buy more time. That claim needs a closer look. What was really extended was not peace, but the deadline of an ultimatum. The blockade is still there. Iran’s oil tanks at Kharg Island will be full in a matter of days. American officials have quietly given Tehran a window of just three to five days — basically a final warning wrapped in the language of talks.
Russia is quietly happy with all this. Its own sanctioned oil is selling well because Iranian supplies are stuck. China is watching from the sidelines and making its own gains. This whole game of pressure is helping Moscow and Beijing in ways that Washington may not have fully thought through.
Now let’s talk about India.
As this crisis drags on, India’s silence is starting to look less like careful non-alignment and more like simply staying away. There is a big difference between not picking sides and not showing up at all.
India depends on imports for 85 to 90 percent of its energy needs. A large part of that oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. Any trouble there directly hits fuel prices, fertiliser supplies, and the lives of ordinary people back home. On top of that, nearly nine million Indians work in the Gulf countries, and the money they send back is a vital part of our economy. With stakes this high, staying completely silent is hard to justify.
India has good working relations with both Tehran and Washington — something very few countries can claim. Back-channel talks may be happening, but back channels are not the same as having a proper seat at the main table. And the table being set right now — however shaky — has no chair kept for New Delhi.
This absence will come at a price. When a deal is finally struck — and deals are always struck in the end — its terms will favour those who actually sat and negotiated. Those who stayed outside will have to accept whatever is decided without having any say in it.
There is an old rule in serious diplomacy: you secure your seat at the table before the agreement is signed, not after. Once the deal is done, the positions are fixed.
India has the standing, the contacts, the economic stake, and the regional weight to play a real role in ending this crisis. The question is no longer whether it should get involved. The question is whether there is still time left before the table is cleared for good.
At this point, silence is no longer neutrality. It is simply giving up your place.
