After Iran talks falter, the big question is ‘what happens next?’
After Iran talks falter, the big question is ‘what happens next?’
The 21-hour meeting in Islamabad failed to bridge 47 years of animosity between Iran and the United States. The high-stakes discussions, held during a brief pause in weeks of relentless conflict, were destined to yield only partial results. Labeling this extended negotiation as a failure understates the magnitude of the challenge in resolving deep-seated differences over intricate matters, from longstanding doubts about Iran’s nuclear ambitions to fresh concerns regarding its dominion over the strategic Strait of Hormuz, whose closure has disrupted global oil markets.
Despite initial optimism, the U.S. and Iran faced an uphill battle in overcoming mutual suspicion. Just a day before the talks, it was uncertain whether the two delegations would even meet. This marked a pivotal moment in breaking a long-standing political divide. The urgent question now is: What will follow? How will the fragile two-week ceasefire, which temporarily halted the threat of U.S. President Donald Trump’s vision of annihilating an entire Iranian civilization, hold up? Will the U.S. return to the table with renewed commitment?
Behind the Scenes of Negotiations
Reports from Islamabad suggest conversations continued past the departure of U.S. Vice-President JD Vance at dawn, with his team claiming to have delivered their ‘final and best offer.’ At a short morning press briefing, Vance highlighted the U.S.’s ‘core goal’:
We need to see an affirmative commitment that [Iran] will not seek a nuclear weapon and will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve one.
He framed the lack of agreement as ‘bad news for Iran much more than the United States of America.’
During the last round in February, Iran had proposed concessions, such as reducing its 440kg stockpile of 60% enriched uranium. However, it still clings to its ‘right’ to enrich and has not yielded that stockpile, now reportedly hidden under rubble after U.S.-Israeli strikes last year. The country also rejected demands to open the Strait of Hormuz without a new accord, emphasizing the economic stakes of its control.
Both delegations arrived in Islamabad with confidence, believing they represented the stronger side in the war. They understood that if talks collapsed, military action remained an option. A lack of psychological insight into the adversary’s motivations, as noted by Dr. Sanam Vakil of Chatham House, may have complicated the process. Vance described the session as a mix of progress and setbacks: ‘We’ve had a number of substantive negotiations,’ but ‘We have not reached an agreement,’ which he deemed ‘more damaging to Iran than to the U.S.’
Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei criticized the U.S. for ‘excessive demands and unlawful requests’ in a post on X. Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the Iranian delegation, stated that ‘
