The Iran–US talks that concluded on Sunday in Islamabad appear to have immobilized, but within this stalemate auspicious prospects for future progress also seem to be obscured.
After 21 hours of protracted discussions, when the US delegation withdrew without any final agreement, once again the question emerged whether this is failure or an unavoidable pause before eliminating the twists and turns ahead of a major agreement.
US Vice President JD Vance, before departure, asserted that the US had made a final and best offer and now it remains to be seen what response Iran furnishes to it, and JD Vance also asserted that nuclear enrichment is their red line. On the other hand, Iran also abstained from declaring the negotiations a complete failure. In this context, this pause in the talks can be described as an indication of melting ice, not a prelude to a long stalemate, and neither can the nations of the world afford to endure further economic difficulties and pain due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
The significance of these talks was also greater because they were occurring after a 40-day-long war in which thousands of people were killed and a large number of buildings were demolished, in which alongside civilian populations, hospitals, schools and mosques were also not spared. According to reports, most of the casualties transpired in Iran, where carpet bombing-like US and Israeli attacks inflicted large-scale destruction. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ismail Baghaei clearly said that in such intricate conditions, not reaching an agreement in a single session is not unusual, because such complicated matters necessitate multiple rounds of talks. Citizens of Tehran also articulated cautious hope, although their trust has been profoundly affected due to continuous air strikes and deception during previous negotiations.
The US position also remained similarly inflexible but within a limited scope. JD Vance stated that during the 21 hours of talks they repeatedly conferred with President Donald Trump and also remained in contact with other senior officials. This gives the impression that the US delegation did not have full authority over nuclear matters for major decisions and they were continuously procuring instructions from Washington. This is why during the talks, on a few points, especially the nuclear issue, no flexibility was shown and fundamental differences remained.
This apparent stalemate is also important because the main dispute in the talks centered around the nuclear program. The central US condition remained that Iran must not attain the capability to build nuclear weapons. US experts also said that Washington clearly defined its objectives in the negotiations but there was no major change in its stance. This means that the US essentially wants to restrict Iran’s nuclear enrichment to the point of elimination, and this is the same indication that Netanyahu has been giving for several decades, while Iran insists on its right to enrichment for civilian purposes under international law.
This situation rekindles memories of the 2015 nuclear deal when, after extended negotiations, a comprehensive agreement was reached between Iran and world powers. Under this agreement, Iran was allowed enrichment up to a limited level, but later the US withdrew from it. After that, Iran amplified its program and increased the enrichment level, on which Israel and the US reacted.
An important aspect of the talks held in Islamabad was also that multiple points were discussed on both sides. Iran presented ten points while the US set a framework of fifteen points. However, before departure JD Vance essentially underscored a central condition, from which it appears that the real difference is of a limited but sensitive nature. The Iranian position was also that all matters cannot be settled in one round and further negotiations are required. This leads to the conclusion that both sides have not completely withdrawn from negotiations but have kept the path open for the next phase.
The ongoing tension in the region has not been limited to Iran only, but attacks between Lebanon and Israel also continued. Israeli operations persisted in southern Lebanon, while reports of rocket attacks and drone activity also emerged. According to the Lebanese Ministry of Health, thousands of people have been fatally impacted since March. This situation has made it clear that if Iran-US talks fail, the entire region could face further instability.
Despite all these factors, diplomatic hopes have not completely ended. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said that Islamabad will continue facilitating negotiations between the two countries. This statement also indicates that the negotiation process has not ended but only one phase has been completed. In this context, Australia and other countries have also urged both sides to continue talks and give a permanent form to the ceasefire.
Strict statements have certainly emanated from both sides, but the doors have not been closed, which means that the fundamental differences are of a limited but important nature, requiring further diplomatic efforts to resolve them. If talks are held again in the coming weeks, extension of the ceasefire and diminution in tensions may be possible. In the global scenario also, these signals are being received that neither side wants full confrontation.
The US is claiming victory on the battlefield but is sustaining the diplomatic process. Iran, despite severe losses, has not withdrawn from negotiations along with resistance. World powers want to avoid an energy crisis, while regional countries are worried about the risk of a wider war. Considering all these factors, the likelihood is that despite the stalemate, the dialogue process will resume again, and if the next round of talks takes place, it is quite possible that those differences which have become obstacles at this stage may also be resolved, while for the global economy, regional peace and energy stability, this path appears to be the most viable.
Translated by MM News Editorial Team
