US President Donald Trump’s characteristic optimism regarding an imminent and comprehensive agreement is ringing hollow after Iranian and US high-level officials did not show up in Islamabad.
The framework for a potential agreement that exists today is not only vastly more complicated than the negotiations that produced the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran, but it is also burdened by the brutal legacy of the recent war. Ultimately, the US administration’s desperate push for a swift conclusion appears to be driven less by strategic reality and more by urgent internal political pressures.
The latest signals around renewed ceasefire talks between the US and Iran arrive wrapped in ambiguity. Regional officials suggest that both sides are willing, at least in principle, to return to negotiations in Islamabad under Pakistani mediation. Yet confirmations from both sides are elusive, and expectations are already strained.
The plans place US Vice President J D Vance and Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf at the helm of their respective delegations. Their anticipated arrival on Monday was meant to signal momentum — a reset, perhaps, after days of rising tension.
Instead, the choreography faltered before it began, with timelines slipping and both sides hesitating to fully commit in public. On the ground in Islamabad on Tuesday, the optics suggested movement: tightened security, diplomatic preparations, the quiet hum of a city bracing for significance. But beneath the surface, uncertainty dominated.
Neither capital has officially confirmed a date for the next round of talks; the anticipated arrival of the delegations slipped from Monday to Tuesday and then to an unspecified date. The murkiness may stem from Iran’s reluctance to publicly commit to attending, resisting any clear acknowledgment that talks are imminent.
Pakistan has stated that it is still awaiting a formal response from Iran on whether it will send a delegation to the second round of talks, a decision officials describe as critical with only hours remaining before the two-week ceasefire expires.
Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said Islamabad remains in constant contact with Tehran and continues to push for dialogue.
Ghalibaf has sharpened the tone, warning that Iran will not negotiate “under the shadow of threats”. His rhetoric also goes further, hinting at escalation and invoking “new cards on the battlefield”, language that feels more like positioning for a new round of confrontation.
He also accused Trump of “opening a siege and violating the ceasefire” in a reference to recent confrontations in the Strait of Hormuz, where the US seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship and countered Iran’s effective blockade with one of its own on Iranian ports.
From Washington, the message is no less combative. On Tuesday, Trump accused Iran of violating the ceasefire “numerous times”. He pointed to tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, alleging Iranian attacks on shipping lanes.
Trump also told the US network CNBC that he has no intention of extending the ceasefire with Iran, asserting that the US holds a strong negotiating position and will ultimately secure what he called “a great deal”.
Dismissing reports that he felt rushed to reach a deal, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “I read the Fake News saying that I am under ‘pressure’ to make a Deal. THIS IS NOT TRUE! I am under no pressure whatsoever, although it will all happen relatively quickly!”
Trump offered no evidence to support his optimism, a vagueness that only deepens the uncertainty surrounding the talks.
Tehran’s statements also continue to cast doubt on the timing of the negotiations. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told his Pakistani counterpart that US actions, statements, and “excessive demands” reveal Washington’s “lack of seriousness for diplomacy”.
But it was the Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson, not Araghchi, who flatly stated on Monday that Iran has “no plans for the next round”. Meanwhile, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian offered a more conciliatory note, saying diplomacy “should be used to reduce tensions”, though how much power he wields in Iran’s hierarchy remains an open question.
Reinforcing the hardline stance, senior commander Ali Abdollahi of the Khatam Al-Anbiya Central Headquarters told the Iranian Tasnim News Agency that Iran’s armed forces stand ready to deliver an “immediate and decisive response” to any renewed hostile action.
Asserting that Tehran holds the military upper hand, including in the management of the Strait of Hormuz, Abdollahi vowed that Iran would not allow Trump to “create false narratives over the situation on the ground”.
Though Iran briefly reopened the strait on Friday, it shut it again on Saturday after the US refused to lift its counter-blockade. For Trump, who has made restoring pre-war shipping levels in the strait a priority, the red line is clear: he threatened to resume bombing if no agreement was reached by Wednesday’s deadline.
This mutual recrimination exposes a deeper structural problem: the chasm between Washington and Tehran remains as wide as ever, with each capital operating from a radically different script and with little sign of convergence.
But even if negotiations resume this week, the gulf between the two sides remains enormous not only in their positions but also in their timelines.
“Iran seeks lengthy confidence-building measures and detailed, in-depth negotiations, whereas the United States demands quick talks and even quicker results,” an Iranian politician close to the Iranian government told Al-Ahram Weekly.
“Trump appears to assume that Tehran, wary of renewed conflict, will hasten towards a swift agreement on Washington’s terms. Yet, from Iran’s vantage point, the calculus is markedly different: while war is hardly desirable, it may still be deemed preferable to a hurried settlement that compromises the nation’s strategic interests,” he said.
The negotiations also extend well beyond a single track, touching other theatres such as Lebanon.
The US will convene ambassador-level talks between Israel and Lebanon on Thursday, though it is still unclear whether the objective is to extend a fragile 10-day ceasefire with Hizbullah or to pave the way for deeper negotiations.
On Tuesday, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and French President Emmanuel Macron discussed how to bolster Beirut’s leverage in any direct talks with Israel.
To understand why a quick deal is a fantasy, it is necessary to revisit the timeline of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. The negotiations leading to that landmark agreement were neither quick nor simple.
The agreement was narrowly focused on a single, albeit complex, issue: curbing Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.
The current negotiations between Tehran and Washington stand in stark contrast, possessing an agenda that is exponentially more expansive and contentious. Coming in the wake of a bloody, multi-week war that saw direct US-Israeli strikes on Iranian territory, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and a US naval blockade, the atmosphere is poisoned by a profound lack of trust.
Moreover, the scope of US demands has expanded far beyond the nuclear file. The Trump administration’s demands include a 20-year moratorium on all uranium enrichment, the complete dismantlement or surrender of Iran’s current stockpile of highly enriched uranium, restriction on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, and a halt to Tehran’s support for regional allies such as Hizbullah and the Houthis.
For its part, Iran has raised the stakes equally high, demanding a complete and permanent end to the war, verifiable guarantees that the US will not attack again, the lifting of all sanctions, and compensation for the damage inflicted during the war.
While the 2015 negotiators spent nearly two years debating centrifuge numbers, the 2026 negotiators are expected to resolve the fate of missile programmes, proxy networks, territorial sovereignty, and war reparations in a matter of days. This is a logical impossibility.
Despite the unrealistic timeline, Trump’s push for a rapid deal with Iran is driven by domestic politics and economic pressure, not diplomatic reality. With midterm elections approaching and his approval rating at a record low, he needs a victory to campaign on.
Nevertheless, the rush for a swift deal in Islamabad ignores the fundamental nature of Iranian diplomacy. Iran approaches negotiations through “strategic patience”, meticulously scrutinising every clause in an approach that has consistently outlasted its adversaries.
Having survived the initial phase of military escalation, Iran now appears focused on securing a settlement that is durable rather than expedient.
Effectively, Iran is forcing the Trump administration to confront a stark choice: accept a slower, more substantive negotiation process or abandon diplomacy altogether and risk returning to a conflict that is likely to be even more costly and politically damaging than before.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 23 April, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.
Short link: