The latest round of high stakes diplomacy between Washington and Tehran has ended without a breakthrough, underscoring just how deep the divisions remain between the two sides even as war, economic disruption, and regional instability continue to mount.
The United States and Iran have failed to reach a deal after high stakes talks in the Pakistani capital, with Vice President JD Vance saying Tehran refused to accept Washington’s terms after 21 hours of negotiations in Islamabad.
“The 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,” Vance, the head of the US delegation, told reporters shortly before he left Islamabad after the highest level meeting between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
He said Iran chose “not to accept our terms”, adding that the US needs to see a “fundamental commitment” from Tehran not to develop nuclear weapons.
“We 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,” Vance said.
The remarks reflect a harder line than in previous rounds of diplomacy, with US officials now pushing beyond limits on enrichment toward a broader dismantling of Iran’s potential nuclear capabilities. Analysts speaking to multiple international outlets say that shift has significantly raised the bar for any agreement, making compromise far more difficult.
Al Jazeera’s John Hendren, reporting from Washington, DC, said the fact that President Donald Trump sent Vance showed the US was taking these talks seriously.
“The fact that Vance left doesn’t necessarily mean that the talks are over,” he said, adding that the main sticking points seem to be the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran continues to control, and the gaps in the nuclear issue.
“The US has been negotiating with Iran over time; those talks can continue remotely, and leaving those talks may simply be a hard stance,” the Al Jazeera correspondent added.
Hendren said the US is demanding not just that Iran pledge that it will not develop nuclear weapons, but also that it will not even try to access those tools, adding that such gaps made the talks in the mid 2010s take years to negotiate. That earlier process culminated in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a landmark agreement that imposed limits on Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief.
Iran signals patience while mistrust runs deep
Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Sunday that no one had expected the talks with the US to reach an agreement in a single session.
“Naturally, from the beginning, we should not have expected to reach an agreement in a single session. No one had such an expectation,” ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said, according to state broadcaster Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting.
He said Tehran was “confident that contacts between us and Pakistan, as well as our other friends in the region, will continue”.
The measured tone from Tehran reflects what regional analysts describe as a dual strategy. On one hand, Iran is signaling openness to continued dialogue. On the other, it is resisting what it views as maximalist US demands that go beyond previous agreements and touch on sovereign rights.
Reports from Tehran indicate that the Iranian side has not shared information on the technicalities or other details pertaining to the points of controversy in the talks.
“Previously, the domain of the talks between Washington and Iran was concentrated upon the nuclear dossier and stockpile of highly enriched uranium, and that was a matter of controversy in the previous rounds of negotiations,” he said.
“But this time, we’re dealing with a rather comprehensive approach when it comes to other issues; and obviously, with that comprehensiveness comes other controversial issues,” said the correspondent, adding that rival sides are looking to address many subjects from the Strait of Hormuz to security assurances.
That broader scope marks a significant shift. According to reporting from several international news agencies, recent negotiations have expanded to include regional security, maritime access, and even indirect discussions about proxy conflicts. Each added layer increases complexity and reduces the likelihood of quick breakthroughs.
Pakistan’s mediation and the wider stakes
Meanwhile, Pakistan has called on the US and Iran to uphold their commitment to the ceasefire and continue efforts to achieve a durable peace.
“On behalf of Pakistan, I would like to express gratitude to the two sides for appreciating Pakistan’s efforts to achieve a ceasefire and its mediator role. We hope that the two sides continue with a positive spirit to achieve durable peace and prosperity for the entire region and beyond,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said.
Islamabad’s role as host and mediator has drawn cautious praise from diplomats, though observers note that Pakistan’s influence over the core disputes remains limited. Still, its involvement highlights how regional powers are increasingly stepping in to prevent further escalation.
Reports from Islamabad indicate that in the framework proposed by Iran before the talks, there was no mention of a complete surrender of nuclear ambitions.
“But what the US is essentially asking Iran now is that they give up their right to any nuclear programme, even for medical purposes,” he said.
“There is a sea of mistrust that they are trying to build bridges over, and statements like this and leaving the negotiations with an ultimatum are not going to help bridge those divides,” he said.
That mistrust has been compounded by years of shifting policies. The collapse of the 2015 nuclear deal during Trump’s first presidency remains a central grievance for Tehran, with Iranian officials frequently citing it as evidence that US commitments cannot be relied upon.
War, energy shocks and a fragile ceasefire
The failed talks come against the backdrop of an ongoing war that has already reshaped the region. The United States and Israel launched a war on Iran on February 28 that expanded to the wider Middle East, with Tehran carrying out retaliatory attacks on Israel and neighbouring Gulf countries hosting US assets.
More than 2,000 people were killed, and military and civilian areas were damaged in the US Israeli attacks on Iran. Independent analysts and humanitarian groups have warned that the true toll could be higher, given the difficulty of assessing damage across multiple conflict zones.
The war began despite several rounds of talks between Washington and Tehran. Oman, which had acted as a mediator, said the war started despite a deal “within reach”. Experts cited by international media have argued that the outbreak of hostilities raised serious questions about the durability of diplomatic channels and compliance with international law.
The conflict has also triggered a global energy crisis after Iran put a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, through which some 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas exports pass. Oil markets have reacted sharply, with prices swinging amid fears of prolonged disruption.
The US delegation, led by Vance, and the Iranian delegation, led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, had discussed how to advance a ceasefire already threatened by deep disagreements and Israel’s continued attacks against the Lebanese group Hezbollah.
Israeli strikes have continued across southern Lebanon, with at least six people killed in the Tyre district in the latest attack. The continued violence underscores how the conflict has spilled beyond Iran itself, drawing in regional actors and raising the risk of further escalation.
Despite the breakdown in talks, diplomats and analysts caution against viewing the outcome as final. Backchannel communications are likely to continue, and both sides have reasons to avoid a complete collapse of diplomacy.
For Washington, securing limits on Iran’s nuclear programme remains a strategic priority, particularly amid concerns about proliferation. For Tehran, relief from economic pressure and the restoration of stable oil exports are equally critical.
Yet the gap between the two positions remains wide. The United States is demanding sweeping guarantees that extend beyond previous agreements, while Iran is resisting what it sees as an erosion of its sovereignty and rights.
The setting of the talks in Islamabad, far from the traditional venues of Middle East diplomacy, reflects both the urgency of the moment and the lack of a clear diplomatic pathway. It also signals a broader shift, with more countries attempting to play mediating roles in an increasingly multipolar world.
For now, the outcome is a familiar one in US Iran relations. Intensive negotiations, strong rhetoric, limited progress, and a promise, however uncertain, that talks may continue. The stakes, however, are higher than in years past, with war ongoing, energy markets strained, and regional stability hanging in the balance.
Whether future rounds can bridge the deep divides exposed in Islamabad remains unclear. What is certain is that the consequences of failure will not be confined to the negotiating table, but will continue to reverberate across the Middle East and the global economy.
This article was first published on Aljazeera
