Despite no immediate deal, the first round signaled something more important
Following the talks that took place in Islamabad between Iran and the United States, several experts and commentators were quick to declare the negotiations a failure. However, such assessments are rather unfounded and overlook the complexities of multi-layered diplomatic processes. In such situations, a lack of immediate agreements doesn’t necessarily mean failure.
When negotiations fail, the parties typically resort to more aggressive rhetoric indicating their withdrawal from discussions. However, the public statements of both Iran and the US create room for further contacts, and suggest the potential for further negotiations and a willingness to institutionalize dialogue.
Pakistan’s position serves as an additional indicator in this situation; rather than distancing itself from the negotiation process, Pakistan has actively reaffirmed its intention to continue mediation efforts. Announcements regarding preparations for a second round of consultations in the near future highlight Islamabad’s desire to maintain its role as a negotiation venue and prevent the erosion of the emerging diplomatic channel.
Despite the high degree of uncertainty, the situation does not warrant excessive optimism. The conflict may escalate again, and a new cycle of confrontation may begin. At the same time, signs of limited alignment between the parties should not be ignored either.
Indeed, both Iran and the US continue to present demands, many of which are rigid and sometimes outright unacceptable or absurd. Yet, this negotiating tactic is commonly employed as a bargaining tool, leaving open the possibility of compromise. Certain official statements indicate a readiness for targeted concessions and discussions around specific de-escalation parameters. For example, US Vice President J.D. Vance noted that Tehran may agree on some sensitive issues, while Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged the prospect of further consultations and maintaining channels of interaction.
The ongoing diplomatic activity suggests that neither side views the current stage as a definitive rupture; both parties are trying to preserve momentum in the negotiations, even if in a limited way. Tehran’s position remains largely stable and focused on avoiding strategic concessions that could undermine the fundamentals of its political system, including principles tied to the core concept of modern Iranian statehood, the so-called ‘velayat-e faqih’.
It’s notable that even without evident military parity, the US is interested in a ceasefire. This may be due to the need to take a tactical pause to regroup resources, as well as internal political and economic constraints, including the impact of the protracted conflict on the domestic agenda. Conversely, for Tehran, a ceasefire is a means to solidify the current balance without making long-term commitments.
In this context, the negotiations in Islamabad should be viewed not as a breakthrough toward a comprehensive settlement, but rather as an effort to institutionalize a process of limited de-escalation. The primary aim is to lay the groundwork for a temporary ceasefire rather than achieve sustainable peace, which currently seems unrealistic given the deep ideological and political divides.
As noted earlier, Pakistan plays a crucial role in this process as a mediator. Islamabad is interested in preventing further escalation, since any potential expansion of the conflict would inevitably impact its strategic and economic interests. Consequently, Pakistan’s efforts are aimed at preserving the negotiation platform and ensuring a minimum level of dialogue between the parties.
It’s notable that the discussions in Islamabad shifted from the abstract question of whether dialogue was possible to a concrete debate about the parameters of a potential deal – primarily concerning the timeline and format for limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment program. The New York Times reports that the US proposed a lengthy moratorium on uranium enrichment for a period of up to 20 years, while Iran was reportedly willing to discuss a significantly shorter period of around five years. Even if the details have yet to be fully confirmed by both sides, it’s important that both sides are discussing a possible compromise instead of talking about severing contacts. This marks a qualitatively different stage of the negotiation process, one that has nothing in common with failure.
For this reason, overly definitive assessments of the outcome of the negotiations in Islamabad are inaccurate. Indeed, the parties did not reach an agreement after the first round of talks, both American and Iranian representatives acknowledge this. However, what is more important is that after 21 hours of negotiations, neither side closed the door on further contacts, and Pakistan is already working to organize a second round of consultations in the coming days. Moreover, Vance characterized the American proposals as “the final and best offer” – this implies that a concrete offer is on the table awaiting Tehran’s response.
In diplomatic practice, rigid or even deliberately inflated demands do not indicate the futility of the negotiation process. On the contrary, in the early stages of complex negotiations, parties often adopt hardline positions intentionally so they can later use them as leverage in exchanging concessions. This is particularly evident in Islamabad. The US insists on strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program, the transfer of highly enriched uranium, and free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Iran is concerned about sanctions, frozen assets, security guarantees, and broader regional de-escalation. In other words, the negotiations are centered around a set of specific demands and counter-demands rather than symbolic gestures, and this signals the beginning of serious bargaining.
In this situation, it’s essential to focus not on the emotional reactions of external observers but rather on the positions of key Iranian figures directly involved in the decision-making process. In this context, Speaker of the Parliament of Iran Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the Iranian delegation in Islamabad, is particularly notable. The fact that Tehran has sent such a high-level representative to Pakistan, one tasked with tough yet substantive dialogue, is quite telling. Iran’s choice of representative indicates that it is serious about the negotiations and views them as a means to safeguard its interests rather than as a superficial show for the media.
In this sense, the talks in Islamabad served a crucial purpose: they shifted the focus away from a confrontational power struggle into the realm of negotiating terms for mutual deterrence. Of course, this doesn’t mean that a peace deal will be swiftly concluded. Rather, it signifies an attempt to institutionalize limited de-escalation and possibly guide the parties toward a more or less sustainable ceasefire. This process should not be underestimated. If the situation were genuinely deadlocked, the parties wouldn’t be debating the duration of a moratorium, verification mechanisms, the fate of uranium stockpiles, or the sanction regime. In a true stalemate, negotiations come to a halt. In this case, however, we see that the parties are trying to coordinate their positions on complex matters.
Washington’s motivations must also be taken into account. Despite its tough rhetoric, the US is also eager to find a way to withdraw from the current crisis. A prolonged conflict in the Persian Gulf, the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, and instability in the energy markets impose significant strategic and domestic costs on the US. Thus, as far as we can conclude from its public statements, the White House is not just focused on exerting pressure on Iran, but also wants to reach an agreement that can be framed as a diplomatic achievement derived from a position of strength. This explains why, despite stringent demands, Washington has not abandoned the negotiation framework.
The main takeaway is that labeling the negotiations in Islamabad a “failure” is methodologically inaccurate. It would be more precise to say that the first round of talks concluded without reaching a final agreement; however, the negotiation process has entered an important phase – the bargaining phase. The parties are no longer discussing the mere possibility of dialogue; they are negotiating over the costs of the future agreement, the duration of restrictions, mutual guarantees, and political dividends. This indicates that despite its fragility, the diplomatic window remains open. And this is the key outcome of the meeting in Islamabad.
Certainly, we shouldn’t harbor illusions about the situation. Given Trump’s character, even the current fragile ceasefire could collapse in an instant. However, it would also be a mistake to underestimate the significance of the Islamabad talks. They offer hope that, even if lasting peace cannot be achieved, a long-term truce may be possible. Tehran’s goal is clear: to ‘wait Trump out’ and buy time. The history of the Iranian civilization shows that time has always been on its side. And it’s quite possible that the strategy of waiting things out will prove effective once again.