\n
<\/p>\n
A historic meeting, 21 hours of negotiations, and one \u201cfinal\u201d offer.<\/strong><\/p>\n Yet, the high-level \u2018Islamabad Talks<\/a>\u2019 between the United States and Iran ended inconclusively early Sunday morning. Although commentators and analysts say<\/a> the dialogue was unlikely to end any other way, the heart wants what it wants, and the entire world sat on the edge of their seats, hoping for nothing short of a miracle.<\/p>\n After a day and an entire night of talks, US Vice President JD Vance finally addressed journalists at a press briefing at 6:30am, where he announced the \u201cbad news\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have not reached an agreement, and I think that\u2019s bad news for Iran much more than it\u2019s bad news for the United States of America,\u201d he said, elaborating that Iran had chosen \u201cnot to accept our terms\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cWe 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,\u201d Vance added. Shortly after, he flew back<\/a> to the US.<\/p>\n On the other hand, Iran\u2019s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, also the leader of the Iranian delegation in Islamabad, said they raised \u201cforward-looking\u201d initiatives, but the US failed to win their trust during the negotiations.<\/p>\n \u201cThe US has understood Iran\u2019s logic and \u2060principles, and it\u2019s time \u2060for them to decide whether they can \u2060earn our trust or not,\u201d \u2060he wrote in \u200ca post on X.<\/p>\n In the US, President Donald Trump started his Sunday morning with a barrage of threats directed at Iran. \u201cI could take out Iran in one day [\u2026] I could have their entire energy, everything, every one of their plants, their electric generating plants, which is a big deal,\u201d he said, during a phone interview<\/a> on the Fox News<\/em> show \u2018Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo\u2019.<\/p>\n Trump further announced<\/a> that the United States Navy would begin the process of blockading vessels entering or leaving the Strait of Hormuz, citing concerns over maritime security and alleging that Iran had threatened shipping in the waterway.<\/p>\n \n <\/a>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/span><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n Iran has dismissed the warnings, saying that it had complete control of the Strait of Hormuz.<\/p>\n But amid all the minute-by-minute developments, an urgent question remains unanswered: what next? What happened to the two-week ceasefire that pulled the world back from the end of \u201ca whole civilisation\u201d?<\/p>\n According to journalist and analyst Zahid Hussain, the ceasefire would hold for now and the negotiations were likely to continue, at least through backchannel talks. \u201cThey have failed to reach an agreement but are discussing a number of issues,\u201d he told Dawn<\/em>.<\/p>\n Hussain pointed out that there were two points where a deadlock persisted between the US and Iran: nuclear weapons and the Strait of Hormuz. \u201cWe were expecting the talks to lead to an extension in the ceasefire or some kind of agreement to resume negotiations.\u201d<\/p>\n On the other hand, he continued, was Israel\u2019s position. \u201cTel Aviv had grudgingly and conditionally accepted the ceasefire,\u201d the journalist recalled, adding that ever since the talks concluded, Israel had escalated the bombardment of Lebanon.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are fears that they could do the same with Iran as well, which could lead to a compelling situation,\u201d he said. \u201cBut there are signs that backchannel negotiations will continue and Pakistan could still play the role of a negotiator.\u201d<\/p>\n In an Al Jazeera<\/em> report<\/a>, Washington-based journalist John Hendren expressed a similar opinion, saying Trump\u2019s decision to send Vance to Islamabad showed the seriousness with which the US was taking these talks.<\/p>\n \u201cThe fact that Vance left doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that the talks are over,\u201d he said. \u201cThe US has been negotiating with Iran over time. Those talks can continue remotely, and leaving those talks may simply be a hard stance.\u201d<\/p>\n Speaking to Dawn<\/em> over the phone, journalist Baqir Sajjad said that if the ceasefire holds, the immediate phase was likely to be one of \u201ccautious pause rather than visible movement\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cBoth sides appear to have used the Islamabad round to clarify positions, and any follow-up engagement would now depend on internal reassessments in Washington and Tehran. Diplomacy may continue, but in a quieter, more incremental manner, possibly focusing on limited understandings before attempting a wider settlement,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n In case the ceasefire doesn\u2019t hold, Sajjad highlighted, the risk was that of a return to escalation, with both sides seeking to improve leverage before returning to the table.<\/p>\n \u201cDevelopments around the Strait of Hormuz or in peripheral theatres could become triggers. In such a scenario, the space for diplomacy would narrow, at least in the short term, even though backchannel contacts may remain active,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, writer and political analyst Trita Parsi, in an interview with CNN<\/em>, noted that only six days had passed into the two-week ceasefire.<\/p>\n \u201cMore rounds may occur since neither side has rejected further talks,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd perhaps neither side wanted an agreement right away, since it could give the impression that they gave in too quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cStill, the most likely outcome is no deal, but also no return to a US-Iran war,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n \n <\/a>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/span><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n Commenting on Trump\u2019s threat of closing down the Strait of Hormuz, Iran\u2019s foreign and security policy expert Hamidreza Azizi said, \u201cOne should not forget that in the past 40 days, Iran has been able to ship and sell its oil through the strait, while other oil-producing countries in the region have not.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis means Iran is already 40 days ahead of others.\u201d<\/p>\n \n <\/a>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/span><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n Similarly, Iranian-American academic Vali Nasr wondered if Trump\u2019s naval blockade was aimed at escalating pressure on Iran as a prelude to another round of talks.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd Iran\u2019s response? It could be pressure on shipping in the Red Sea? This is now even more than before a test of endurance between the US and Iran,\u201d he wrote in a post on X.<\/p>\n \n <\/a>\n <\/p><\/blockquote>\n <\/span><\/div>\n<\/figure>\n Currently, even though the ceasefire holds, analysts have called it fragile. Fatemeh\u00a0Aman, Iran-Pakistan expert and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told<\/a> DW<\/em> that the ceasefire was not based on a political agreement.<\/p>\n \u201cIt reflects a temporary pause shaped by caution and short-term calculations. Both sides are managing the situation rather than resolving it.\u201d<\/p>\n And this is why, it is all the more important that the truce holds and mediation channels remain intact, she said, adding that \u201cwithout a follow-up diplomatic process, the ceasefire remains exposed\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cNeither side wants to appear as conceding after a failed round. There will likely be a pause as both reassess their position and leverage. If talks resume, they are unlikely to begin with the most difficult issues.<\/p>\n \u201cThey will likely start with narrower, technical steps that reduce risk without requiring major concessions,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n Header image:<\/strong><\/em> Demonstrators flags of Iran and Lebanon during a protest against US military action in Iran near the White House in Washington, DC. \u2014 AFP<\/em><\/p>\n<\/a>Negotiations likely to continue<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/a>The \u2018what if\u2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/a>A prelude?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
<\/a>An \u2018exposed\u2019 ceasefire<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n