By Sayan Chatterjee
Somewhere in the middle of all the noise, hashtags, and sharp opinions, we seem to be losing the ability to look at global events with balance. Take this phrase doing the rounds – “TACO,” or “Trump Always Chickens Out.” It sounds clever and fits neatly into headlines, but it doesn’t really explain much.
Also Read
In serious negotiations—especially those involving conflict, energy routes, and global stability—things are rarely black and white. Leaders threaten, pause, escalate, and step back. That is not weakness; that is how high-stakes negotiations have always worked.
What we have seen recently reflects exactly this pattern. The US, under Donald Trump, raised pressure sharply on Iran, even signaling possible strikes on key infrastructure. Soon after, Tehran agreed to engage. Talks began, and a temporary ceasefire followed. One may debate the intent or the method, but to say that nothing changed—or to dismiss the sequence as failure—misses a basic point: pressure did produce movement.
From an Indian perspective, the conflict is not a distant power game. The Strait of Hormuz carries nearly a fifth of the world’s oil supply. For a country like India, which depends heavily on imported crude, any disruption in this narrow stretch is felt almost immediately. If shipping slows or stops, fuel prices rise, inflation follows, and the cost of everyday life goes up. What happens there does not stay there.
And that is exactly where the concern lies today. Shipping through the Strait has remained uncertain, with security concerns, trust deficits, and reports of Iran attempting to influence transit conditions adding to the tension. Insurance premiums for tankers have risen, freight costs have climbed, and global supply chains are under pressure. At the same time, the United States has hinted at stronger maritime enforcement, including tighter restrictions on Iranian oil movement. This creates a familiar cycle—action and counteraction—where both sides partially escalate and partially step back.
Seen in this light, the situation is not about who is winning or losing. It is about how far each side can push without triggering something larger. That is how most modern conflicts operate—not as clear battles, but as calibrated pressure.
What is more concerning, however, is how these developments are being presented. In many cases, the focus seems less on what is actually happening and more on how it can be framed. Narratives quickly form, one side is portrayed as erratic, and the other as calculated. Sympathy sometimes appears in places where it is not entirely justified. But geopolitics is not a social media argument. It is complex, layered, and often uncomfortable, where outcomes are rarely immediate and success is often invisible.
As Indians, we tend to see these situations differently. Our concerns are practical. Stability matters. Trade routes matter. Energy security matters. When oil prices rise due to tensions in West Asia, it affects transport, food, and household expenses across the country. These are not abstract ideas for us—they are lived realities.
There is also an understanding, perhaps shaped by experience, that power is not always loud. Sometimes it lies in applying pressure and then stepping back at the right moment. Sometimes it lies in keeping negotiations alive, even if they seem slow or inconclusive. And sometimes, it lies in simply buying time—time to avoid escalation, time to allow shifts within systems, time to prevent a larger crisis. In geopolitics, time is often the most valuable currency.
Meanwhile, the world continues to move on multiple fronts. Missions like Artemis II signal renewed ambition in space. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues with brief pauses but no lasting resolution. Violence in Sudan is spilling across borders. Economic pressures are rising globally, driven in part by uncertainty in energy markets. Everything is more connected than before, and disruptions in one region now echo across continents.
In such a world, reducing complex global developments to a phrase like “TACO” feels inadequate. It may draw attention and spark reactions, but it does little to deepen understanding. And at a time when events are moving quickly and consequences are far-reaching, understanding matters far more than scoring points.
The writer is a Delhi-based independent contributor to print and online publication
