![\"How](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-130205190,imgsize-3879943,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/generative-ai-image.jpg\")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe much-anticipated Iran\u2013United States negotiations in Islamabad ended without a breakthrough after nearly 21 hours of intense deliberations, exposing deep-rooted strategic divides and casting uncertainty over the fragile ceasefire that had briefly paused a six-week-long conflict. What was billed as a rare diplomatic opening \u2014 the first direct engagement between Washington and Tehran in over a decade \u2014 instead concluded in stalemate, with both sides walking away and blaming each other for the collapse.The talks, held in Pakistan<\/a>\u2019s capital on April 11\u201312, were seen as a last-ditch effort to stabilise a conflict that has already killed thousands, disrupted global energy markets, and heightened fears of a wider regional war. Yet, despite marathon negotiations and active mediation by Pakistan\u2019s top leadership, the two sides failed to bridge differences on core issues, particularly Iran\u2019s nuclear programme and control over the Strait of Hormuz. <\/p>\n Watch<\/span><\/p>\n ‘Hormuz In Our Hands’: Iran Taunts Trump After Islamabad Talks Collapse | Watch<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n At the centre of the negotiations was US Vice President JD Vance, who led the American delegation. Emerging from the talks, Vance struck a firm tone, making it clear that Washington believed Tehran had failed to meet its expectations.\u201cThe bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,\u201d he said shortly before departing Islamabad. <\/p>\n .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n His remarks reflected a broader US position that the burden of compromise lay primarily with Iran. Vance repeatedly stressed that Washington had drawn clear \u201cred lines\u201d \u2014 particularly on nuclear issues \u2014 and that Tehran had refused to accept them.\u201cSo we go back to the United States having not come to an agreement. We’ve made very clear what our red lines are.\u201dThis framing signals that the US entered the talks not as an equal negotiator seeking mutual concessions, but as a party expecting compliance after what it considers a position of strength following weeks of military action.<\/p>\n The central sticking point in Islamabad was Iran\u2019s nuclear programme \u2014 an issue that has defined US -Iran tensions for decades. According to Vance, Washington\u2019s demand was unequivocal: a long-term, verifiable commitment from Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons.\u201cWe need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon.\u201dHe added that the US was not satisfied with temporary assurances or partial limitations. Instead, it sought a permanent guarantee \u2014 something Iran has historically resisted.\u201cDo we see a fundamental commitment of will for the Iranians not to develop a nuclear weapon, not just now, not just two years from now, but for the long term? We haven’t seen that yet.\u201dFrom Tehran\u2019s perspective, however, this demand crosses a red line of its own. Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is peaceful and that it retains the right to enrich uranium under international law. Iranian officials reportedly offered limited concessions \u2014 including temporary suspension of certain activities \u2014 but stopped short of permanently dismantling their capabilities.This fundamental disagreement \u2014 between permanent dismantlement and conditional limitation \u2014 proved impossible to reconcile in a single negotiating session.<\/p>\n Iran\u2019s response to the US negotiating position was sharp and unequivocal, with officials and state media repeatedly describing Washington\u2019s terms as \u201cexcessive\u201d and unrealistic, reflecting not just tactical disagreements but a deeper structural mistrust that has long defined relations between the two sides. Iranian officials indicated that the American demands went far beyond the scope of a ceasefire framework, touching upon core sovereign and strategic concerns that Tehran has historically refused to compromise on.According to Iranian accounts, Washington pushed for sweeping commitments, including long-term restrictions on Iran\u2019s nuclear programme, guarantees around the Strait of Hormuz, and broader strategic concessions that Tehran views as an infringement on its rights. For Iran, these demands were seen less as negotiation points and more as ultimatums \u2014 reinforcing a perception that the United States was seeking capitulation rather than a balanced agreement. Iranian media, including the semi-official Tasnim news agency, pointed to disagreements over the nuclear programme and control of the Strait of Hormuz as the principal reasons behind the collapse of the Islamabad talks. <\/p>\n .<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Beyond the specifics, the negotiations were overshadowed by entrenched distrust. Iranian officials cited past experiences \u2014 including sanctions, military escalation, and the breakdown of earlier agreements \u2014 as reasons for their reluctance to accept U.S. assurances without concrete guarantees. This mistrust translated into demands for sanctions relief, war reparations, and security assurances, which Washington appeared unwilling to fully accommodate.The divergence was also procedural. While the United States approached the talks with what it described as a \u201cfinal offer\u201d and sought immediate, definitive commitments, Iran viewed the process as the beginning of a longer negotiation cycle, expecting phased concessions and reciprocal steps. This mismatch in expectations meant that even areas of partial convergence failed to translate into a broader agreement.Reinforcing Tehran\u2019s position, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei publicly underscored the conditions required for any meaningful breakthrough. \u201cThe success of this diplomatic process depends on the seriousness and good faith of the opposing side, refraining from excessive demands and unlawful requests, and the acceptance of Iran’s legitimate rights and interests,\u201d he wrote on X. He added that discussions during the talks covered a wide range of contentious issues, stating, \u201cDiscussions were held over the past 24 hours on various aspects of the main issues of the negotiations, including the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear issue, war reparations, the lifting of sanctions, and the complete end of the war against Iran and in the region.\u201d Emphasising Iran\u2019s broader approach, Baqaei said the country was \u201cdetermined to use all means, including diplomacy, to secure national interests and safeguard the country’s interests\u201d.<\/p>\n Beyond the nuclear issue, control over the Strait of Hormuz emerged as another major fault line. The narrow waterway, through which roughly 20% of global oil supplies pass, has become a powerful lever in Iran\u2019s strategic calculus.Tehran has blocked the strait since the conflict began, triggering sharp spikes in global oil prices and disrupting energy markets worldwide. During the Islamabad talks, Iran reportedly demanded not only reopening negotiations on the strait but also asserting greater control over it, including the right to collect transit fees.For the United States, this was unacceptable. Ensuring free navigation through the strait is a core strategic priority, both for economic stability and for maintaining its global leadership role.Interestingly, despite the ongoing dispute, some movement was observed during the ceasefire. Shipping data indicated that three fully laden supertankers passed through the strait \u2014 the first such movement since hostilities began \u2014 offering a brief glimmer of hope. However, hundreds of vessels remain stranded in the Gulf, awaiting clarity.<\/p>\n\u2018Bad news for Iran\u2019: JD
![\".\"](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/photo\/msid-130205109\/.jpg\" "\\".\\"")
<\/p>\nThe nuclear impasse at the heart of the deadlock<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Iran pushes back: \u2018Excessive\u2019 demands and mistrust<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
![\".\"](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/photo\/msid-130205138\/.jpg\" "\\".\\"")
<\/p>\nThe Strait of Hormuz: A geopolitical choke point<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Pakistan\u2019s mediation effort: Active but limited<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n