The latest round of US Iran negotiations in Islamabad, which lasted 21 hours and took place under a two week ceasefire framework, failed to produce even a preliminary agreement outlining a roadmap for future discussions.
At the core of the collapse was the same issue that has derailed multiple negotiation rounds over the past seven years: Iran’s refusal to dismantle its nuclear programme.
Nuclear Deadlock Remains the Primary Barrier
The inability to resolve this central dispute has once again pushed negotiations into a deadlock, raising the likelihood of renewed conflict despite both Washington and Tehran signalling reluctance to prolong military escalation.
The talks marked one of the highest level engagements between the two sides since before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, including direct discussions between JD Vance and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
Despite the breakdown, Donald Trump expressed confidence that diplomatic efforts would continue. He stated that Iranian leadership had not withdrawn from negotiations and asserted that Washington expects full compliance with its demands, rejecting any partial concessions.
Historical Tensions and Strategic Disputes
Negotiators were unable to overcome nearly five decades of entrenched hostility between the United States and Iran. Key points of contention included Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme and disputes surrounding control of the Strait of Hormuz.
While tensions over the nuclear file remain longstanding, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a newer flashpoint, intensifying friction during the current conflict.
Iran continues to insist on its right to enrich uranium, while Washington maintains that the programme reflects intentions to develop nuclear weapons.
Partial Progress and Technical Proposals
Officials from both Iran and Oman indicated that gaps between the two sides could still be narrowed, citing earlier progress made in talks earlier this year.
Reports suggest that Iran had previously offered to reduce its stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium, currently estimated at 450 kilograms, a quantity that could theoretically be further enriched to produce up to 11 nuclear weapons.
Hormuz Dispute Escalates Tensions
Control over the Strait of Hormuz became a decisive point of contention in Islamabad. US officials categorically rejected Iranian demands for recognition of its effective control over the waterway, while Tehran insisted on authority over transit and the collection of navigation revenues.
Iranian negotiators also rejected a Pakistani proposal for joint US Iranian patrols in the strait.
In response, Washington moved to challenge Iranian influence over the passage without formally breaching the ceasefire.
Military Movements and Escalation Signals
United States Central Command announced the deployment of two guided missile destroyers through the Strait of Hormuz to initiate efforts aimed at establishing a new maritime corridor.
Additional US forces, including unmanned submarines, are expected to join mine clearing operations in the coming days.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed that it forced the US vessels to retreat through threats of attack, a claim widely disputed.
Hours after the talks concluded, Trump threatened escalation if Iran did not relinquish its position over the strait. He announced plans for a naval blockade targeting all vessels attempting to enter or exit Hormuz, alongside operations to remove mines placed in the waterway.
Economic Pressure Strategy
The proposed blockade is designed to exert maximum economic pressure on Iran, including indirect pressure on China, the largest importer of Iranian oil, in an effort to compel Tehran to reverse its position on Hormuz.
Iran, in turn, warned it would target US naval forces enforcing the blockade, while asserting that the strait remains open for civilian shipping despite conflicting claims.
Experts warn that any sustained disruption in the strait would likely trigger a sharp rise in global oil prices.
Secondary Issues: Lebanon and Sanctions
Two additional issues featured in pre negotiation manoeuvres but were not decisive in the talks’ collapse.
Ghalibaf had threatened to boycott negotiations unless the ceasefire extended to clashes involving Israel and Hezbollah, which escalated after Hezbollah joined Iran’s military efforts earlier in March.
This linkage reflects Iran’s broader strategy of asserting its leadership role within a regional resistance axis against the United States and Israel, while maintaining support for allied non state actors.
Simultaneously, Israel reportedly carried out at least 200 strikes on Hezbollah positions during the negotiation period, despite US pressure for restraint.
On sanctions relief, Iran prioritised the lifting of secondary US sanctions, with the presence of Central Bank Governor Abdolnasser Hemmati signalling the importance of economic concessions.
Prior to the talks, Ghalibaf accused Washington of backtracking on an agreement to release 6 billion dollars in frozen Iranian assets, previously transferred from South Korean banks to Qatar under a 2023 prisoner exchange deal.
The United States had paused the release following the events of 7 October 2023.
However, during the Islamabad talks, US officials did not oppose releasing these assets or broader sanctions relief as part of a comprehensive agreement framework.
