Iran US Talks Collapse, Why and What’s Next?

Examining the structural factors that led to breakdown of the US and Iran talks in Islamabad and the dangerous escalation ahead.

The brief glimmer of hope of Iran and the United States direct talks the first since the breakdown of relations between the two after the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the seizure of the US Embassy of Tehran creating an environment for extending the cease fire and leading beyond conflict management to resolution failed even as both sides did some heavy lifting by fielding large and influential delegations in Islamabad.

Yet to expect that 21 hours negotiations between embedded rivals of past many decades and tough negotiators was unrealistic.  Thus, the failure of the talks were possibly preordained due to several structural factors. Firstly lack of trust in both sides over the years and particularly after recent escalation including the killing of the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamanei as well as launch of operations by the US and Israel even as talks were being held in June last year and February this year.

Secondly maximalist aims of the Trump administration in terms of nuclear enrichment wanting Tehran to forsake the same completely which Iran was unlikely to conceded in a short round of negotiations.

Thirdly the Israel factor. Israeli leaders particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to reinforce Iran’s zero nuclear enrichment status and also thought the Iranian regime could be brought to the knees so to say despite 40 days of devastating attacks having failed to do so.

Fourthly the possibility of the US administration likely to see the cease fire as another window to build up for military escalation by positioning troops and resources with the final objective being a weakened Iranian regime that could collapse.

For Iran sanctions relief the first stage of which was unfreezing of the funds held in Iraq, Luxembourg, Bahrain, Japan, Qatar, Turkey and Germany  by the United States was a necessary outcome of the talks so that the team led by Qalibaf could flag the same domestically. Preservation of the uranium stockpile, which as some reports go, a special operation by the US had failed in seizing ostensibly while rescuing an F 15 fighter pilot who had bailed out after his aircraft was brought down. Reparations for damage from six weeks of airstrikes possibly could have been discussed and was not a breaking point as such.

Control of the Straits of Hormuz was another key objective for Iran given the differences that had emerged fracturing the global community including isolation of the United States from its Western allies including France and the UK.

Application of the 14 day cease fire to Hezbollah and Lebanon was another key factor for Iran even as Israel kept pounding the hapless people destroying the country’s south killing hundreds even as the US and Iran were preparing for talks in Islamabad.

The Iranian delegation also sought a final peace deal rather than merely extension of the cease fire knowing the legacy of past commitments by the US  the trust factor as Qalibaf and his team emphasised after the talks broke down. Iran’s negotiating strategy was to hold firm, accept little, and wait out the pressure.

So what next.

There are several reports which indicate that Iran and the US may be looking at another round of negotiations, however before that a crisis is brewing in the Straits of Hormuz after the US has declared successful blockade of Iranian ports denying export of oil even as Tehran claims it controls the waters.

The United States has seized the initiative and US President Donald Trump on Truth Social announced a U.S.-led naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

That there are US Naval ships which have assumed position of advantage is clear, yet this is not likely to be enough for resumption of oil trade through the waters due to inherent risks which mercantile shipping is averse to. Thus skyrocketing oil and gas prices are now evident which could force the two sides to pull back.

Another assassination campaign against Iran could be in the offing with the likes of Qalibaf, commanders of the IRGC and members of the Supreme National Security Council who are seen to be resisting the deal likely in the firing line.

A pulverising “break the will,” of the Iranian command as well as general public is a given and Mr Trump has already threatened the same.

More targeting of the Hezbollah by Israel and actions in the Gaza and West Bank are also likely in the pattern of general escalation.

It is unclear what military options Iran has to retaliate apart from targeting US naval ships in the Straits.

Does it have missile stocks in reserve or some that may have been provided by China with Mr Trump threatening to impost 50 percent tariffs on Beijing for the same. Will the IRGC fast attack craft be able to cause sufficient damage to US warships in a escalate to de-escalate strategy?

And Iran is also banking on the impact that the blockade will have on the oil markets and thus renewed pressure on Washington to disengage from the Hormuz.

Whatever be the trajectory the fact that talks were held and a modicum for making peace discussed assumes importance.