Negotiating under naval guns

The latest escalation in US-Iran tensions is not merely another spike in the familiar cycle of provocations and negotiations.

Following an agreement in their second round of Geneva talks on February 17 that supposedly gave Iran two weeks to come up with proposals fulfilling expectations of the Trump administration, the world instead is witnessing a progressive militarization of the two countries’ negotiations with reports of the US being ready to attack Iran as soon as this weekend.

Now add to this the navies of Iran, China and Russia coming together for their Maritime Security Belt 2026 annual naval exercises, which started February 18.

The simultaneous rival naval maneuvers, aircraft carrier deployments and multilateral naval-signaling exercises at the Strait of Hormuz – a critical chokepoint for the passage of a quarter of the world’s liquified natural gas and 20% of world’s crude oil exports – can no longer be dismisssed as background noise. They must be seen now as instruments that are shaping the talks’ outcome.

The irony is stark: just as Washington and Tehran claimed “cautious progress” in their nuclear negotiations, the Persian Gulf and adjoining waters are becoming a theater of calibrated coercion, strategic alignment and strategic signaling by major powers.

Strait of Hormuz weaponized

At the heart of this rapid escalation lies the four-day Maritime Security Belt 2026 naval exercise that extends from Strait of Hormuz into the northern Indian Ocean. This is no routine drill. Only last month, under US pressure, Iran had withdrawn its ships at very last minute to become only an observer of the BRICS “Will for Peace 2026” naval exercises in the South Atlantic off the coast of South Africa.

But in the naval exercises this week, one in an annual series started in 2019 under Iranian initiative, Iran’s regular navy is operating alongside the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Navy, Russian and Chinese surface combatants and nine observer nations.

While Iran, Russia and China aim to strengthen cooperation in combating piracy and maritime terrorism, as well as conduct coordinated search-and-rescue operations, observer nations from Azerbaijan, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and South Africa (not all of them confirmed yet) monitor and participate in simulation scenarios and non-combatant strategic dialogues.

The symbolism is unmistakable. Especially, the timing could hardly be more consequential. Earlier this week, IRGC naval drills that had started Monday resulted in the temporary closure of Hormuz for several hours blocking the world’s most critical oil and gas transit route for several nations. Almost the entire oil imports of Japan and South Korea and over 40% of China’s and 35% of India’s pass through Strait of Hormuz.

In classical deterrence theory, chokepoints are seen as leverage for worst case scenarios – but in contemporary geopolitics they are molding soft-balancing narratives as well. Tehran is not merely rehearsing denial capabilities; it is reminding the global economy – especially energy-supplier and recipient allies of Washington – that escalation with Iran is not going to be bilateral.

Russia and China enter the equation

The muscular response from Washington has, predictably, provoked Russia and China. The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group deployed off Oman is followed by world’s largest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford. This signals classic US doctrine: overwhelming presence as reassurance and deterrence.

These nuclear-powered platforms project air dominance, strike depth and escalation control. Yet their arrival has tightened their security dilemma. Every deck sortie has reinforced Iranian threat perceptions. Every Iranian drill has validated US concerns about regional disruption.

What now alters the strategic landscape is this triangularization of this impasse. Iran is now joined by Russia, through its advanced surface combatants such as the Marshal Shaposhnikov frigate, and China’s guided-missile Tangshan destroyer and frigates from its Djibouti-based 48th flotilla that have transformed their annual exercise into something more than symbolic solidarity. This may not be a NATO-style alliance, but it is strategic alignment by practice.

For Moscow, joint drills with Iran serve multiple purposes: signalling relevance beyond Ukraine, complicating US force planning,and reinforcing the Russian narrative of resisting Western coercion. For Beijing, participation is subtler yet no less consequential. China’s presence underscores its interest in energy security, sea-lane stability and an alternative security architecture that marginalizes US primacy without direct confrontation.

Observer nations gain operational exposure, strategic signaling value, maritime domain awareness, diplomatic leverage with major powers and crisis-management insights – without incurring escalation risks or alliance entanglements.

The message is clearest for Tehran: Iran no longer stands isolated.

Negotiating under the shadow of war

This backdrop surely complicate matters as US-Iran nuclear talks enter a high-stakes phase following that February 17 second round of indirect negotiations in Geneva. Both sides reported progress and agreement on “guiding principles,” yet both simultaneously engaged in military posturing that undercuts diplomatic trust. This contradiction is not accidental; it reflects diverging strategic logics.

Washington insists that Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons – a position reiterated forcefully by J.D. Vance, who frames Iran as the world’s most “hostile and irrational” regime – which, therefore, must not have nuclear weapons.

Tehran, for its part, emphasises verification, sanctions relief and its right to nuclear energy but has been giving contradictory signals. President Masoud Pezeshkian signals openness to any verification of nuclear sites, while Supreme Leader Ali Khmenei invokes religious and revolutionary symbolism, rejecting negotiation framed as submission.

Narrowing the diplomatic space further ,the US red lines – originally limited to preventing weaponization – have dramatically expanded under Israeli influence: zero enrichment inside Iran, surrender of enriched uranium stockpiles, curbs on missile development and termination of support for Iran’s regional partners.

From Tehran’s perspective, these are not negotiating demands but an outright attempt to destroy Iranian defense and threaten regime-change. No state bargains away deterrence while facing carrier strike groups at its doorstep.

Regional powers as new diplomatic brokers

One of the most under-analyzed dimensions of the current crisis is the role of regional middle powers. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and Iraq have been collectively pushing for de-escalation, fearing that a US-Iran clash would devastate trade, energy markets and regional stability.

Significantly, these states are now performing diplomatic functions once dominated by European powers – reflecting a post-Eurocentric regional order.

The Geneva talks are mediated by Oman, whose Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi has played a pivotal shuttle role by talking to both the delegations. The involvement of the IAEA under Rafael Gross adds technical gravitas to verify Iran’s promise of enrichment pause for sanctions lift and for inspections related to sites damaged in the June 2025 Israel-US strikes.

But this regionalization of diplomacy contrasts sharply with the globalization of military risk. Any miscalculation in the Strait of Hormuz would reverberate through global oil markets, insurance premiums, shipping routes and great-power relations. The presence of Russian and Chinese vessels ensures that even a limited incident could escalate horizontally, not just vertically, with global implications.

This paradox is cruel but logical. The US military deployments were intended to coerce a compromise. Yet, excessive pressure entrenches resistance. Iran’s leadership reads naval encirclement not as leverage but as confirmation that concessions invite vulnerability. Meanwhile, US policymakers face domestic and allied pressures that make compromise politically hazardous.

In this sense, these naval drills are no longer a sideshow; they are now unfolding as new structural determinants of US-Iran nuclear negotiations. They are likely to lock both sides into postures that reward toughness over flexibility. The more the crisis get militarized, the less room remains for a sustainable nuclear agreement.

Is diplomacy drowned by gunboats?

Taken together, the Maritime Security Belt 2026 exercise, the IRGC drills in Hormuz and the dual US carrier task force deployments represent a profound strategic shift: diplomacy conducted at gunpoint, observed by the world and interpreted through great-power rivalry. This is no longer about centrifuges and sanctions. It is about who shapes the regional order, who controls those chokepoints and whose red lines define legitimacy of outcomes.

Unless Washington and Tehran de-link nuclear negotiations from this maximalist military signaling from both sides, the window for a deal will continue to shrink. In its place looms a far more dangerous equilibrium – stable enough to avoid war, yet unstable enough to ensure perpetual tensions.

Swaran Singh is a professor of diplomacy and disarmament at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi