The high-stakes talks between the US and Iran in Islamabad were meant to turn the fragile two-week ceasefire into something lasting. Instead, the marathon talks, lasting some 21 hours,
ended with no agreement between the warring parties.
The talks in Pakistan's capital, were the highest-level direct engagement between Iran and the US since the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the American embassy crisis in Tehran. Pakistan acted as "mediator". The stakes were huge. The US-Israeli war on Iran, which began on February 28, has already disrupted global oil supplies and pushed the Middle East to the brink.
While US President Donald Trump had been desperately seeking a way out, an even more desperate Pakistan invited the warring sides to its capital, even as the fragile two-week ceasefire was
torn to shreds by the Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.
Experts, before the talks commenced in Islamabad, had pointed out that divisions, mistrust and the ground situation ensured the talks in Islamabad were always on shaky ground. Here are five key points to help you gauge the situation in which the talks in Islamabad were held, and why they failed.
1. RIGID STANCES, DEEP DIVIDES KEPT US, IRAN APART IN ISLAMABAD
The core reason the US-Iran talks in Islamabad failed was that neither side was willing to compromise or move from its red lines.
The US demanded that Iran halt uranium enrichment and commit not to seek nuclear weapons in the future. Iran refused. It maintained that its nuclear programme was for peaceful civilian purposes.
After the talks, US Vice President JD Vance, who had flown to Islamabad for the negotiations, said, "We just could not get to a situation where the Iranians were willing to accept our terms". Vance, however, said that the American side was "quite flexible and accommodating".
Iran's foreign ministry called the US demands "excessive and unreasonable".
The conclusion of the talks in Islamabad has given an edge to Iran. Iran, which has shown a
greater ability to endure pain and impose asymmetric economic costs on the US,
felt no urgency to concede in the talks, experts say.
Former American Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller told CNN that the Iranians "
hold more cards than the Americans" after 21 hours of talks ended without an agreement.
"They are clearly in no hurry to make concessions," Miller told CNN, suggesting that Iran appeared to be operating on a slower timeline than the US.
2. WERE TALKS IN ISLAMABAD HELD IN CONDUCIVE ENVIRONMENT? TRUMP'S THREATS LOOMED LARGE
Peace talks need trust. Or at least some calm, or a sense of it. While the negotiators from Iran and the US huddled in Islamabad, there was neither.
US President Donald Trump, who issued repeated threats to Iran and even
said "the whole civilisation will die tonight", did not dial it down even hours before the talks began. While Iranian officials landed in Pakistan, Trump warned he would renew and intensify US strikes if a peace deal was not reached.
That hostile backdrop shaped the talks. Iran saw it as pressure, not diplomacy.
Analysts pointed out that the ceasefire itself came after the maximalist threats from Trump. Instead of building confidence, it hardened the position of Tehran. Iran entered the room wary. The US came in with firm demands. The gap between the two was meant to be widened.
3. DID ISRAEL'S LEBANON STRIKES BECOME A PEACE-BLOCKER?
E
ven as Iran-US talks were underway in Pakistan, Israel continued strikes in Lebanon, the territory controlled by Hezbollah, the terror outfit which is part of Tehran's "Axis of Resistance".
Iran wanted the Israeli strikes on Lebanon to stop as a prerequisite for the peace talks. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made it clear the bilateral ceasefire between the US and Iran did not apply to it. Israeli strikes continued on Lebanon.
Pakistan's Defence Minister
Khwaja Asif provoked Israel with a tweet, which he later deleted, on the eve of the talks. Asif accused Israel of committing "genocide" in Lebanon. His post seeking the "annihilation of Israel" saw an angry reaction from Israeli PM Banjamin Natanyahu's office.
Meanwhile, the Israeli ambassador to India said that
Pakistan was not a credible partner for the peace talks.
The Israeli attacks on Lebanon tested the fragile ceasefire as negotiations began. While Iran pushed for wider de-escalation, the US did not offer guarantees. That made compromise harder.
4. HOW STRAIT OF HORMUZ BECAME A DEAL-BREAKER
The control of the Strait of Hormuz, which has been largely closed since February 28, turned into a major sticking point in the US-Iran talks.
Iran had earlier mined parts of the strait, which choked shipping and oil flows out of the Persian Gulf. The US wanted Hormuz to be immediately reopened. It saw this as non-negotiable, Trump said repeatedly. He even went on an expletives-laden rant on Truth Social, warning the Iranians that they would be "living in hell", if they didn't open the Strait.
But, Iran sees the Strait of Hormuz as a leverage. It wants relief from sanctions imposed on it and security guarantees first.
According to news agency Reuters, differences over the control of the Strait of Hormuz remained even after progress on other issues. CNN noted that the failure raises fresh concerns about reopening the strait.
Earlier, Trump had told the ABC that he was eyeing a joint venture with Iran to control the choke point and
was looking to collect toll from the ships passing the strait.
The Iranians have sought formal recognition of its and Oman's control over the strait. It also wants to retain the right to charge transit tolls or fees on shipping at the Strait of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, the US military command, CENTCOM, on Sunday said that two of its ships had travelled through the Strait of Hormuz. But the claim was denied by Iran.
But, the talks in Isamabad did not yield any concrete outcome with regard to the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, which was an immediate demand by the American side.
5. TRUST DEFICIT BETWEEN US, IRAN MADE PEACE TALKS FAIL?
In the end, trust was the biggest decider in the peace talks in Islamabad. Years of hostility meant both sides doubted each other's intentions. Even before the talks, Iran's negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said,
"We have goodwill, but we do not trust".
That mindset was Iranian baggage that the negotiators carried for 21 hours of talks.
While the American Vice President, Vance, called the US proposal its "final and best", the Iranians saw them as being "one-sided".
It was immediately after the talks in Geneva, which were said to have been positive, that the US and Israel conducted deadly airstrikes on Iran on February 28.
For Iran, peace talks also sound like a cover for military offensives.
Given the long history of hostility between the US and Iran,
Washington's inability or refusal to rein in Israel's strikes on Lebanon, and its repeated demands that Tehran has already rejected, there was virtually no trust. So, every proposal by the US appeared like a trap. The concession, if at all offered, looked risky. The result was predictable. There was no deal.
The failure of the talks in Islamabad leaves the ceasefire even more fragile. Meanwhile, Pakistan says it will keep trying. But unless the core issues change, the outcome of talks might not.
