THE action-packed weekend, which came early to Islamabad, also ended quickly.
By Sunday afternoon, the US-Iran talks had taken place and the two parties flew back without much to show publicly for the intense, hours-long negotiations. The press reaction varied — while many international headlines announced a failure of the talks, others were less pessimistic. Perhaps the headline, like beauty, lay in the eye of the beholder and her expectations.
Those who expected a major breakthrough within a day of talks have been disappointed, while those who saw the talks as the beginning of a long, drawn-out process were and are hopeful that the ceasefire might continue as well as the negotiations, for neither side has denied the possibility of the latter. Indeed, for most of Sunday there were statements from leaders worldwide urging a continuation of the talks.
At the same time, there was little clarity on what the sticking points may have been, though there were hints aplenty. For instance, before leaving Islamabad, Vice-President J.D. Vance highlighted the nuclear issue only, adding that he had left the Iranians with an offer.
“We will see if they accept it,” he said. Intriguingly enough, President Donald Trump in his social media posts focused on the Strait of Hormuz, and even announced a blockade on top of the blockade being imposed by the Iranians themselves. His post led to conjecture that for the Americans, the strait is perhaps one of the sticking points.
A third point that had nearly caused a crisis even before the talks began was the issue of a ceasefire in Lebanon, so it’s possible this will remain an issue.
All of this is, of course, based on the caveat that very little information has been provided officially about the negotiations and that this is what is called a ‘developing story’ in hack language.
However, regardless of what happened in the rooms of Serena, none of the factors pushing Iran and the US for an end to the talks have changed. Trump still has to contend with the spectre of rising oil prices and their impact on his fractured support base and the impending midterm elections. And Iran too, despite its extraordinary performance in the conflict, has to deal with sanctions, a weak economy and an angry population. It may have survived an attack by the combined might of the US and Israel but it needs to focus on reconstruction and further protests cannot be ruled out.
The latter is more than just a possibility, especially as the Iranian economy will be weaker in the aftermath of the war. Rationality dictates that both sides continue with the ceasefire but the desire to win concessions in the negotiations can prove to be a draw for Iran and the US, which can lend a new lease of life to the conflict.
The threat from Iran will remain a major concern, especially for those aligned with Tel Aviv.
However, the fighting has thrown light on the limits of US power — for a superpower went to war and was willing to engage in talks in a matter of weeks without having achieved any of its aims (regardless of however amorphous the stated aims were).
In recent history, one can debate what the US achieved in Afghanistan or Iraq, but at least in the immediate aftermath of its invasions in both countries, it was able to announce victory. There has been nothing comparable in Iran, which is what has led many to conclude, or point to Iran as the victor. While it is too soon to predict what will come next, as the situation is far too fluid, it can safely be said that the region is now going to face considerable instability and a reset of sorts.
The Israeli campaign does not seem to be flagging, which will leave its impact on the countries around it. And while this is a part of the Middle East, which has always dealt with conflict and instability, it may be spreading across the region. A little further afield, the Gulf also faces change. The luxurious havens of the Gulf face an uncertain future — whether or not the US resumes fighting, these states face the possibility of a militarily resurgent Iran.
The Iran conflict and the possible security threat is making their differences public too. Consider the alignment of the UAE with Israel along with its public opposition to Iran. Some of the other Gulf states are also so aligned. And despite Saudi Arabia’s uncomfortable relationship with Iran, one can safely say it supported the talks in Islamabad.
This runs contrary to some of the reporting in the Western press that Riyadh wanted Washington to take the conflict with Iran to a logical conclusion (ie, defeat it decisively).
How this will play out in the coming days is unclear. But especially for those aligned with Tel Aviv, the threat from Iran will continue to be a major factor, whether the fighting resumes or not.
Indeed, there might just be a new push for new security alliances and agreements, for Washington was not really able to protect the Gulf from the Iranian onslaught. Consider that Riyadh signed a deal with Islamabad after the 2025 conflict between the US-Israel alliance and Iran, and earlier this year, the UAE and India finalised a defence partnership. Just days ago, it was reported that Pakistan deployed troops and hardware in Saudi Arabia. Will there be similar announcements from other Gulf states?
Two other matters also need to be watched closely. One is the economic impact of this conflict and the overall health of the Gulf economies in the days to come. The third will be the mood of the people in the region. The Arab street has been quiet so far (with an exception or two) but this might not be the case for long.
Indeed, in the absence of a political resolution or a military victory, this region will continue to be on edge.
The writer is a journalist.
Published in Dawn, April 14th, 2026
