US-Iran talks: What prevented a deal and what's next?

Both sides blamed the other for the breakdown of peace talks in Islamabad, Pakistan on Sunday after a marathon session failed to deliver a deal to end the war sparked six weeks ago by US-Israeli attacks on Iran. US officials said the negotiations fell apart because Iran would not commit to abandoning its nuclear program. Iranian leaders, however, blamed Washington for the breakdown, without detailing the specific disputes. "We 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," Vice President JD Vance said after the discussions. Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, Iran's parliamentary speaker and head of its delegation, said the responsibility now lies with Washington. "It is time for the United States to decide whether it can gain our trust," he stated. Peace talks between the US and Iran collapseTo view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video No deal on Hormuz or Iran's nuclear program The Islamabad meeting marked the first face-to-face talks between the two countries in more than a decade and the highest-level engagement since Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. The discussions followed a ceasefire agreed to earlier in the week. Iran's Tasnim news agency reported that what it called "excessive" US demands had blocked progress. Other Iranian outlets said there was consensus on several issues, but deep divisions remained over Iran's nuclear program and control of the Strait of Hormuz. Following the collapse of talks, US President Donald Trump announced that the US Navy would blockade the strait. A spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry described the atmosphere as marked by mistrust, adding that reaching an agreement in a single session was never realistic. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar urged both sides to preserve the ceasefire agreed to on Tuesday, calling it "imperative" for continued efforts find peace. "We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We will see if the Iranians accept it," Vance said, before leaving for a nearby airport and flying out of Pakistan.Several points unresolved US–Iran talks remain stalled over a variety of issues, and analysts believe the sticking points are difficult to resolve. "The conflict was structural, not tactical. The US sought limits on Iran's nuclear program, regional de-escalation, and secure navigation, framing these as security needs," Fatemeh Aman, Iran-Pakistan expert and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told DW. "Iran demanded sanctions relief, recognition, and protection, negotiating for status rather than just limits. Their core objectives did not align." "The two sides came together but had a different understanding of how they would like to proceed whether on the nuclear aspect or the Strait," said Farwa Aamer, director of South Asia initiatives at the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York. "The marathon talks made way for a dialogue but reaching a common understanding may need longer term process." According to Aman, Washington wanted concessions first, while Tehran wanted relief first. With little trust and competing leverage, neither side moved. "The talks failed because their end goals, not just tactics, were fundamentally incompatible," asserted Aman. Some vessels have passed through the Strait of Hormuz during the ceasefireImage: IMAGO/Anadolu Agency Can the ceasefire hold? And yet, analysts are cautiously optimistic that the ceasefire will hold and that strikes will not resume, with potential backchannel diplomacy helping to sustain the truce. "The ceasefire is holding, but it is fragile," said Aman. "It is not based on a political agreement. It reflects a temporary pause shaped by caution and short-term calculations. Both sides are managing the situation rather than resolving it." Talks in Islamabad began Saturday, days after a fragile ceasefire was declared, as the six-week war, having killed thousands and unsettled global markets continued. Aamer is also relatively optimistic: "It is important that the truce holds, mediation channels remain intact, and both sides continue the diplomatic process," she said. Vance did not clarify in Islamabad what would happen after the two-week ceasefire expired, or whether the ceasefire would continue. "The risk is gradual erosion," said Aman. "Local incidents, miscalculations, or actions by allied groups could test the limits of restraint. Without a follow up diplomatic process, the ceasefire remains exposed. It may hold in the short term, but it lacks long-term stability." More talks Analysts believe immediate US–Iran talks are now unlikely, given heightened tensions and recent setbacks. However, diplomacy is not over, as both sides still have strong incentives to resume negotiations. "More talks are likely, but not immediately," said Aman. "Neither 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. They will likely start with narrower, technical steps that reduce risk without requiring major concessions." For Aamer, quiet diplomacy and mediation may remain at play to enable future rounds. "But it would be contingent on how the United States and Iran determine their immediate next steps," she concluded. Edited by Ben Knight