Why the Fragile U.S.-Iran Negotiations Could Still Hold

Despite collapsed talks in Islamabad, both sides have compelling reasons to extend the truce at least for now

The collapse of 21 hours of direct U.S.-Iran negotiations over the weekend has left a two-week ceasefire looking perilously fragile. Yet for all the finger-pointing and ultimatums, a growing number of analysts and officials argue that the truce is more likely to hold than to loosen, at least in the immediate term.

Image credits: Reuters

“It is imperative that the parties continue to uphold their commitment to the ceasefire,” Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar said Sunday after the talks concluded without a deal. Former diplomat to the US Maleeha Lodhi has said that expectations from the Islamabad talks between mediating parties must be realistic.

“We should recognise that diplomacy is not an event, it’s a process, it takes time.”

Maleeha Lodhi

No One Expected a Quick Fix

The first reason for cautious optimism is that expectations were never high. Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Esmaeil Baqaei, described the lack of an agreement after a single session as entirely “natural,” given the “atmosphere dominated not only by distrust but also by doubt and suspicion, following a 40-day war.”

“No one had such an expectation,” he said, referring to a breakthrough in one round. The Iranian delegation, he added, reached “understanding” on several issues, though “views were far apart” on two or three key points, chiefly Iran’s nuclear program and control of the Strait of Hormuz.

That partial progress, however incremental, offers a foundation to build on. Both sides exchanged written proposals and held expert-level discussions on economic, military, and legal matters. That suggests a channel of communication that remains open, even if the political leaders could not close the gap.

Mutual Exhaustion and Economic Pain

The war has inflicted heavy costs on both sides. More than 3,000 Iranians have been killed, along with over 2,000 in Lebanon, two dozen Israelis, and more than a dozen in Gulf Arab states. Infrastructure damage spans half a dozen countries. The U.S., while less directly exposed, faces global energy shocks. Oil prices have soared since Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz, blocking about 20% of the world’s crude supply.

“The conflict was structural, not tactical,”

Fatemeh Aman, an Iran-Pakistan expert at the Atlantic Council, told DW.

But she noted that both sides are now “managing the situation rather than resolving it.” That management, she argued, reflects a temporary pause shaped by caution and short-term calculations, not a durable peace, but enough to keep the ceasefire from collapsing.

Pakistan’s Role in the U.S.-Iran Negotiations Is Not Over

Pakistan has invested heavily in brokering the April 8 truce and hosting the Islamabad talks. Dar said he and Field Marshal Asim Munir, the army chief, “helped mediate several rounds of intense and constructive negotiations” over 24 hours. Both Vance and Iran’s delegation praised Pakistan’s hospitality and facilitation.

Islamabad has made clear it intends to stay in the game. Dar expressed Pakistan’s readiness to continue playing its role to “facilitate engagement and dialogue” in the days ahead. That sustained mediation offers a backchannel that could absorb shocks and prevent misunderstandings from spiraling.

The Door To Conflict Resolution Remains Open

Returning to war carries unpredictable risks. For the U.S., resuming airstrikes could draw it deeper into a Middle Eastern quagmire just as President Trump faces domestic political calculations.

Analysts point out that while Vance left Islamabad without a deal, he also left the door open. “We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer,” he said.

“We will see if the Iranians accept it.”

JD Vance

Lebanon Wildcard, But Contained

The most immediate threat to the ceasefire is Israel’s continued campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Tehran insists the truce was meant to cover Lebanon; Washington and Tel Aviv say it does not. Israeli strikes have killed more than 300 people in a single day since the ceasefire began.

Yet even here, there are guardrails. Hezbollah has responded with rocket attacks but has not escalated to the point of triggering a full-blown second front. And Iran, despite its rhetoric, has not walked away from the table over Lebanon alone. Baqaei’s remark that “diplomacy never ends” suggests Tehran is willing to compartmentalize.

What Could Go Wrong

The ceasefire remains vulnerable. “The risk is gradual erosion,” Aman told DW. “Local incidents, miscalculations, or actions by allied groups could test the limits of restraint.” The Strait of Hormuz remains under Iran’s de facto control; any incident at sea could reignite tensions. And Trump’s announcement of a U.S. naval blockade after the talks collapsed adds a new flashpoint.

But for now, the default position is pause, not plunge. Both sides have signaled they want to keep talking, even if indirectly. Pakistan is poised to facilitate another round. And neither Washington nor Tehran has anything to gain from being seen as the one that broke the truce.