There is a certain pattern to the way this crisis (Iran-US) has unfolded, and it is hard to ignore once you see it. A ceasefire is announced with some flourish; signals are sent that talks are possible. And then, almost immediately, the ground shifts. Strikes resume somewhere else, some condition or the other is added, and a promise is walked back upon. Just when it looks like things might stabilise, another move resets the board. The latest indefinite extension of the ceasefire fits perfectly into this pattern.

On paper, it sounds like restraint. In practice, it continues the blockade, leads to ongoing maritime confrontations, and yields no clear agreement from the other side. That is not a ceasefire in any meaningful sense. It is a pause declared by one party while the underlying pressure remains fully intact. This is where the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore.

You cannot simultaneously de-escalate and escalate and expect the other side to respond as if only one of those signals matters. Extending a ceasefire while tightening economic and military pressure is not a clever balancing act. It is a mixed message, and mixed messages are read as weakness or manipulation depending on who is listening.

Also Read: US-Iran meet in Islamabad: Vance moves, but motives mute

Iran, for its part, has read it as both. What we are seeing now in the Strait of Hormuz is not an accident or an emotional overreaction. It is a calculated response to a strategy that tries to have it both ways. When pressure is maintained while talks are proposed, the only leverage available to the weaker side is to raise the cost of that pressure. And, in this case, the lever is geography. A narrow waterway through which a significant portion of the world's energy supply flows is not just a map feature, but a strategic equaliser.

It is important to be precise here. Iran does not control the Strait in any absolute........

© Mathrubhumi English