New Delhi, Apr 12: High-stakes talks between the United States and Iran, stretching over 21 hours, ended without a breakthrough, underscoring deep divisions on a range of critical Issues.
The first direct engagement between the long-time rivals failed to produce any agreement, with sharp differences persisting over Iran’s nuclear programme and sanctions relief.
However, diplomatic efforts are far from over and indirect negotiations are set to continue, with Pakistan and Oman expected to play key mediating roles.
Despite the breakdown of formal talks, both sides are keeping backchannel lines open in a bid to prevent further escalation in the region.
Iran’s foreign ministry downplayed the apparent breakdown, saying that no one had held any expectation that talks with the US would reach an agreement within one session.
Vice President J D Vance, who spoke to President Trump at least half a dozen times during the talks, told newsmen that one of the most significant points of differences between two sides was the Iranian nuclear programme.
“We need to see an affirmative commitment that (Iran) will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” he said. “That is the core goal of the President of the United States, and that’s what we’ve tried to achieve through these negotiations.”
Vance said that while the failure to reach an agreement in Islamabad was “bad news”, it was “bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America”. The talks largely focused on transitioning a fragile ceasefire into a lasting peace, with the US prioritising Iran’s nuclear restrictions and Iran focusing on sanctions relief.
Major disagreements remain regarding Iran’s nuclear programme and control over the Strait of Hormuz, with reports of “unreasonable demands” contributing to the lack of a quick resolution.
Iranian officials, in turn, accused the United States of making “unreasonable demands” and called for respect for Iran’s “legitimate rights and interests.”
The talks, mediated by Pakistan, were seen as a key attempt to reach a broader agreement, but ended without progress as both sides maintained their positions.
Iranian SpeakerGhalibaf, who led the Iranian delegation said that we negotiated in good faith and raised “forward-looking initiatives”, without specifying what these were.
“America has understood our logic and principles, and now it’s time for it to decide whether it can earn our trust or not?” he wrote on social media, as he thanked Pakistan for its mediation efforts.
Both J D Vance and senior Iranian leadership, including the Speaker of Parliament, publicly outlined their sharply differing interpretations of the collapse of the marathon talks.
Iranian leaders pointed to a deep-rooted mistrust of the United States, shaped by past experience.
They cited Washington’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 under Donald Trump despite Iran’s compliance at the time, as a key reason for their hardened stance.
Tehran also argued that continued sanctions and what it calls “maximum pressure” policies undermine confidence and make it difficult to commit to fresh concessions without firm guarantees.
This legacy of broken trust continues to cast a long shadow over negotiations, making even indirect engagement cautious and incremental.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar said on Sunday that comprehensive and constructive talks were held between Iran and the United States, stressing that both sides should remain committed to a ceasefire.
He expressed hope that both countries would move forward with a positive approach to ensure lasting peace and prosperity in the region and beyond.
He said that both sides responded positively to the request made by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
He emphasised the importance of maintaining the ceasefire commitment and thanked the delegations from Iran and the United States for participating in the dialogue.
Dar reaffirmed that Pakistan would continue to play a facilitative role in the negotiation process.
