ISLAMABAD:
No sign of a next round of negotiations between Iran and the United States yet. Yet, security details remain intact in Islamabad.
This suggests that the door to a diplomatic breakthrough, however narrow, is not entirely closed, although uncertainty continues to hover over the next phase of negotiations.
“There is no positive movement, but there is no negative movement either,” one source said, referring to security details on the ground, in radio silence regarding the next round of negotiations.
If everything had gone as planned, U.S. and Iranian negotiators would have met again Wednesday, seeking to reach a potential deal.
Pakistan were confident as they had done a lot of groundwork since the first round ended without a breakthrough.
Where did things go wrong?
As of Tuesday afternoon, the plan was already finalized. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were scheduled to fly out first from Miami. Next, Vice President JD Vance’s plane was scheduled to take off from Washington.
Reporters accompanying Vance were instructed to be ready to leave around 9:00 a.m. Washington time (6:00 p.m. PST).
Not that the plan is final, but several sources said that the security means and details put in place on the ground in Islamabad were typical of support for the American president’s movement.
This meant that the United States was ready if Trump decided to intervene.
But then things started to unravel. The American side, which shared new proposals with Iran via Pakistan, wanted a clear response from Tehran before Vance left for Islamabad.
The United States wanted the second round to show progress and even reach a final settlement.
Initially, Iran was inclined to agree. This is the reason why Pakistan has put all security arrangements in place. The American advance teams had landed.
But as the stage was set for talks, Iran, first through state media and then officially, announced that it would not participate in the talks, accusing the United States of violating the terms of the ceasefire.
The Iranian precondition for a US naval blockade was not the only sticking point.
Intense backdoor diplomacy was deployed to break the impasse. Some obvious movements too.
Some notable and public developments include Wednesday’s meeting of the Iranian ambassador with the prime minister and today’s interaction between the acting US envoy and the interior minister.
What has emerged so far is that it is not just certain sticking points that are missing from the resumption of talks, but also a broader divergent approach.
The United States simply wants a quick solution. Trump is keen to close the deal, sign it, and that’s it.
Iran, for its part, is not inclined to reach a deal in haste. He wants incremental progress, a step-by-step approach.
Pakistan, as the lead mediator, does not want the ongoing diplomatic process to be indefinite. He wants to take the process to its logical conclusion.
The visit to Tehran by the marshal, who was supposed to spend a day there but stayed there for three days, was intended for precisely the same thing.
The proposals and new ideas raised by Trump, as well as the expectation of a unified response from Iran, suggest a desire for a final agreement.
Although Iran is reluctant to join the negotiations, it appears that it is still considering this option.
Some within Iran’s ranks tend to believe that a deal in its current form will be a tough sell domestically.
But deep down, we also realize that Iran needs respite. It may have resisted Israeli and American power, but the damage to the economy and infrastructure is immense.
Far from public discourse, the news of the extension of the ceasefire was well received by ordinary Iranians. They understand the pain and suffering of this war.
The extension of the ceasefire is a relief, and at least there will be no immediate escalation.
Messages have always been exchanged. Efforts are being made to salvage the deal at the last minute.
The problem, however, lies in the slow communication channels between Iran’s Supreme Leader and the negotiating team.
The other key aspect of this war is that, unlike past conflicts, it cannot end in a stalemate. One side must prevail over the other.
Suppose the war ends in persistent stalemate. Iran continues to exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz while the United States maintains a naval blockade. This situation is unsustainable, as it would drown the global economy without either side firing a single shot.
This means that ultimately this impasse must be resolved either through diplomacy or war. However, both parties wish to avoid the path of hostilities.
The standoff in the Strait of Hormuz may be dangerous, but it is more of a tactical move on both sides than a real escalation.
Therefore, it’s not over until it’s over.
