After Iran Talks Fumble, The Crucial Next Steps Remain Uncertain
Despite 21 hours of intense dialogue, the U.S. and Iran have not resolved 47 years of tense relations. The high-level discussions in Islamabad, held during a brief pause in the ongoing conflict, were expected to face significant hurdles. Deeming the prolonged negotiations a failure overlooks the immense difficulty of bridging deep divides on intricate matters, from Iran’s long-standing nuclear ambitions to the urgent issue of controlling the Strait of Hormuz—a vital waterway whose closure has disrupted global trade.
The talks also grappled with a profound mutual distrust. Just days prior, it was uncertain whether the two delegations would even meet, let alone engage in face-to-face talks. Breaking a longstanding political barrier, they managed to sit across from one another. Now, the pressing question is: what will come next? How will the fragile two-week ceasefire—once seen as a lifeline to prevent a catastrophic escalation—fare?
Reports from Islamabad suggest that discussions continued after U.S. Vice President JD Vance departed at sunrise, stating that his team had delivered their “final and best offer.” The outcome hinges on whether Washington will pursue further talks or intensify its military approach. The details of the negotiations, held in a secure five-star hotel, remain scarce. Pakistani mediators facilitated talks, with frequent calls between experts, advisers, and Vance’s direct communications with President Trump.
“We need to see an affirmative commitment that [Iran] will not seek a nuclear weapon and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” said Vance during a dawn news briefing.
In February, Iran had proposed new concessions, including reducing its uranium stockpile enriched to 60%—a level nearing weapons-grade. However, it has not agreed to relinquish this stockpile, now reportedly hidden in rubble after U.S. and Israeli airstrikes. The country has also resisted demands to open the Strait of Hormuz, which remains critical for oil and gas shipments.
Both delegations arrived in Islamabad with confidence, believing they held the upper hand in the war. They understood that failure meant returning to the battlefield, despite the growing human and economic toll. Dr. Sanam Vakil of Chatham House noted a “limited psychological grasp of the adversary” in the negotiations. Vance described the session as “substantive” but admitted, “we have not reached an agreement,” which he called “bad news for Iran much more than the United States.”
Iran’s foreign ministry criticized the U.S. for “excessive demands and unlawful requests” on social media. Parliamentary leader Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who headed the Iranian delegation, stated that “the opposing side ultimately failed to earn the trust of the Iranian team.” Yet, Iran signals openness to continued dialogue. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar urged all parties to maintain the ceasefire, echoing similar calls from other diplomatic hubs.
If history is any guide, the 2015 nuclear deal required 18 months of back-and-forth. Trump has shown little patience for extended talks, while Vance warned beforehand that the U.S. would not bend if Iran “played us.” Pakistani journalist Kamran Yousef, among those who provided relentless coverage, noted that this round was marked by “no major progress but no complete collapse either.”
