There is a peculiar kind of dishonesty that creeps into discussions on war, especially when the facts are uncomfortable. It dresses itself up as nuance, speaks in the language of balance, and insists that truth must lie somewhere in the middle. But sometimes the middle is not where the truth sits. Sometimes it is simply where people go to avoid saying what is obvious. Let us begin with what is obvious.

Before this war, there were talks. Not rumours, not vague backchannel whispers, but structured negotiations mediated by Oman. By multiple accounts, those talks were not ornamental. They were moving, slowly but meaningfully, towards some form of accommodation. At that moment, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz was stable, and oil markets reflected that stability. The region, while tense as always, was not on the brink.

Then the war began. It did not begin because diplomacy had completely failed. It began while diplomacy was still in motion. That matters because it undercuts the convenient narrative that war was the last resort. It was not. It was a choice.

Also Read: Endless Hormuz stalemate: Why America's Iran shadow war drags on

And, once that choice was made, the consequences followed a familiar pattern. Infrastructure destroyed. Civilians killed. Among them, as now documented by international organisations, a devastating strike on a school that killed over a hundred and fifty children. One can debate attribution, legal thresholds, intent, and intelligence failure. What cannot be debated is the outcome. Children died in large numbers in the early phase of this war. That is not a marginal detail. It is central to understanding the legitimacy of what followed.

And what has followed? The Strait of Hormuz, which was open, is now contested. Not fully closed, not fully controlled, but unstable. Shipping is riskier. Insurance costs are higher. Energy markets are volatile. The United States, after projecting power in the opening phase, is now talking about........

© Mathrubhumi English