The Islamabad talks have failed—but the real question now is: what happens next? Where is the world headed? Where does the United States stand, and what is Iran thinking? How will their confrontation shape the entire region? Before addressing these questions, it is important to take a broader look at the talks themselves.
Twenty-one hours. That is the time the U.S. Vice President JD Vance and the Iranian delegation spent face-to-face at Islamabad’s Serena Hotel. For the first time since 1979, the highest-level representatives of both countries sat across the same table in direct dialogue. It felt like a historic moment. Yet after twenty-one hours—after sunset and the following sunrise—both sides walked away empty-handed.
Were these talks truly a failure? Or was this another instance of global politics where real decisions are made behind the scenes rather than at the table? Understanding this question is essential; otherwise, we remain stuck observing only the surface, missing the deeper layers beneath.
Let us rewind slightly—back to the weeks that could have changed history.
On February 6, 2026, Iran and the United States held initial talks mediated by Oman. This was followed by second and third rounds in Geneva. Oman’s Foreign Minister stated that an agreement was “within reach,” while Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described a “historic deal” as possible. The atmosphere appeared promising. But what happened on February 28?
Suddenly, the United States and Israel launched a major strike. Their air operations resulted in the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the destruction of key Iranian facilities, and plunged the region into war. Experts from the Arms Control Association later suggested that by the end of the Geneva talks, President Trump may have already decided on military action, using negotiations merely as a delaying tactic. If true, this would mark a dark chapter in diplomatic history.
What followed was a familiar pattern in great power conflicts: war begins, civilians suffer, economies collapse—and eventually, negotiations resume over issues that could have been resolved beforehand. The Iraq war in 2003 followed a similar trajectory: destruction first, dialogue later. One is left to wonder—has humanity learned anything from history?
Why Did the Islamabad Talks Fail?
The true reasons behind the failure of the Islamabad talks are not those publicly stated by either side. JD Vance claimed Iran refused to commit to abandoning nuclear weapons—this is true. Iran argued that the United States made excessive demands—this is also true. But the real issue lies beneath these positions.
Iran demanded full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, war reparations, closure of U.S. bases in the region, and a ceasefire against Hezbollah in Lebanon. These were declared “non-negotiable.” The question is whether any victorious power—even the United States—could accept all these demands. While they may be legitimate, they are not realistic. Negotiations typically involve compromise, not an “all or nothing” stance.
On the other side, the United States also adopted a rigid position. It demanded a complete halt to uranium enrichment inside Iran, dismantling of all nuclear facilities, severing ties with proxy groups, reopening the Strait of Hormuz immediately, and limiting Iran’s missile program. Iran was in no position to accept such sweeping conditions. Domestically, this would raise the question: why endure such losses if these concessions were inevitable?
Another issue was the composition of the U.S. negotiating team. Steve Witkoff, primarily from a real estate background, is not a nuclear expert. Jared Kushner, though influential, is not a career diplomat. Assigning such individuals to highly complex nuclear negotiations is akin to sending a lower-order batsman to face a new ball in a high-stakes match.
There was also a linguistic and strategic inconsistency. Iran released a ten-point draft in both Persian and English—but the two versions were not identical. The Persian version explicitly mentioned the right to uranium enrichment and war reparations, while the English version omitted both. This suggests Iran conveyed one message to its domestic audience and another to the United States.
“Hubris of Power” at Play?
Western analyst Professor Will Waldorf raised a critical point following the talks. He argued that President Trump faced two options: either pragmatically halt escalation—as he did in Yemen—or pursue what Waldorf calls the “hubris of power,” believing additional pressure would force Iran to concede.
This tendency often emerges in asymmetric conflicts, where the stronger side assumes that incremental force will break the opponent. The logic is simple: if so much has already been destroyed, and more power is available, why would the opponent not yield?
In such scenarios, leadership shifts from strategic thinking to short-term military gains—focused on destruction rather than resolution. According to Waldorf, Trump’s announcement of a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz immediately after the talks reflects this second path.
He further noted that such a blockade could raise fuel prices in the United States and weaken Trump politically, yet the decision was still made—indicating confidence that pressure will yield results.
Waldorf also criticized the negotiation approach, arguing that statements like “Iran did not accept our terms” do not reflect true negotiation logic. Real negotiations involve give-and-take, not unilateral conditions. He compared this mindset to past U.S. engagements in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan—where overconfidence led to prolonged conflicts.
Pakistan’s Role: Significant and Remarkable
Amid this complex and often dark narrative, Pakistan’s role stands out as a bright exception. When the world questioned who could bring the U.S. and Iran together under one roof, the answer came from Islamabad. This was not accidental—it was the result of weeks of quiet, patient, and delicate diplomacy.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir played a coordinated role, demonstrating rare civil-military synergy. Political leadership facilitated the diplomatic channel, while military leadership ensured credibility and security.
Pakistan even provided air escort to the Iranian delegation using JF-17 and F-16 aircraft through Iranian airspace—an extraordinary assurance of safe passage. Hosting three rounds of talks under one roof marked one of the most significant moments in Pakistan’s diplomatic history since Ayub Khan.
Symbolism also played a role. Field Marshal Asim Munir wore military uniform when receiving the Iranian delegation but appeared in a suit when welcoming JD Vance—subtly signaling different diplomatic messages to each side.
Pakistan also managed media carefully—avoiding a “media circus,” maintaining strict security around Serena Hotel, and ensuring confidentiality. Major negotiations, after all, succeed in silence, not spectacle.
Criticism that Pakistan “failed” because the talks did not produce an agreement is misplaced. As former diplomat Munir Akram rightly said, “We brought them to the table; the decision was theirs.” Pakistan acted as a facilitator, not a decision-maker.
What Lies Ahead?
Following the breakdown, President Trump announced a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, stating that ships—including those from China, India, and Pakistan—would be stopped if they paid transit fees to Iran.
This creates a dangerous scenario: Iran controlling access from one side, the U.S. enforcing restrictions from the other—while 20% of the world’s oil passes through this route.
For Pakistan, this is deeply concerning. Nearly all its gas imports come from Qatar and the UAE, while oil shipments increasingly rely on routes linked to Saudi Arabia. If chokepoints like Bab al-Mandeb are also disrupted, global energy supply chains could face severe strain.
However, there are still signs of hope. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has indicated willingness to engage with European powers, stating that “diplomacy never ends.”
Hope and Reflection
History shows that even at the height of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union stepped back from nuclear confrontation during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Perhaps today, too, reason will prevail over escalation.
There is hope that Pakistan’s mediation efforts will not end here. A country that facilitated ceasefire dynamics in a nuclearized South Asia may yet help prevent wider conflict.
The hope remains that the Strait of Hormuz stays open, global trade continues, and ordinary people—those who bear the real cost of war—find peace.
