Vance and Ghalibaf meet in Islamabad: Can diplomacy heal US-Iran divide

A significant meeting is taking place in Islamabad this weekend as US Vice-President JD Vance will meet Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf—marking the top-tier face-to-face talks between the two nations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution broke their once-strong strategic alliance. The talks constitutes a significant political initiative as both countries seek to end the regional conflict reverberating across the globe and avert continued deterioration through diplomatic agreement. Yet expectations are measured; whilst the talks indicate commitment to negotiations, the deep-rooted distrust and significant differences between the two sides make any breakthrough far from assured. The meeting comes amid a unstable two-week ceasefire whose terms have already been challenged and broken since announcement.

A momentous moment characterised by suspicion

The photograph, should it emerge, would be momentous. Yet the symbolism of two senior officials standing side by side offers no assurance of warmth or accord. The men may not smile. They may not even shake hands. Such a gesture would not suddenly reverse the decades of hostility that have defined US-Iran relations since the revolution, nor would it immediately resolve the fundamental disagreements that have kept them apart. What it would signal, however, is something perhaps more valuable: a mutual acknowledgement that diplomatic engagement is still viable, even in the darkest moments.

This meeting represents the most notable top-tier discussions since President Trump withdrew from the landmark 2015 nuclear agreement during his first term, dismissing it as the “worst deal in history.” That accord, painstakingly negotiated over approximately eighteen months between then-US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s then-Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, had been widely hailed as a diplomatic achievement. Subsequent efforts during President Biden’s administration made little headway. Now, with Trump resuming the presidency and local conflicts at an all-time high, both sides encounter increasing demands to explore whether dialogue can succeed where previous attempts have faltered.

• Prior negotiations in June 2025 and February were interrupted by US-Israeli armed interventions
• The two nations utilise fundamentally different negotiating styles and strategic methods
• Tehran holds deep distrust arising from repeated diplomatic disappointments and failed accords
• Substantial gaps continue between American and Iranian stances on key points

The gap between bargaining methods and confidence

When the two delegations at last convene across from one another, they will introduce starkly contrasting philosophies to the negotiating table. President Trump has often claimed of engaging the best negotiators, preferring swift, transactional approaches that emphasise visible wins and dramatic breakthroughs. This presents a stark contrast to Iran’s conventionally more cautious, collaborative style, which stresses prolonged dialogue and close examination of home political considerations. These essential contrasts in approach have traditionally hindered past talks and may create similar difficulties.

The confidence gap between Washington and Tehran persists as perhaps the most formidable obstacle. Tehran’s negotiators carry fresh wounds from the abrupt collapse of previous peace talks in June 2025 and February, both times when American-Israeli military strikes commenced whilst talks were nominally in progress. This trend has deepened Iranian distrust about American good faith and dependability. For many Iranian officials, the process of returning to negotiations demands surmounting fundamental uncertainty about whether the United States is capable of being trusted to honour any agreement reached, most notably given Trump’s abandonment of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Comparing different strategies regarding the table

Trump’s negotiating approach centres on speed and decisiveness. His team advocates for quick deal completion, often seeking swift agreements and tangible results that can be highlighted in public. This transaction-oriented philosophy focuses on short-term gains over the painstaking consensus-building that international diplomacy traditionally demands. The American approach emphasises strategic pressure and leverage, believing that power and urgency drive better outcomes. However, this style can seem erratic and unpredictable to negotiators familiar with gradual, deliberate approaches.

Iran’s negotiating legacy prioritises patience, consultation within government, and incremental progress. Iranian negotiators must work through complex domestic politics, reporting to parliament and clerical authorities before making commitments. This method inherently demands time and requires careful coordination amongst different political camps. The Iranian approach values stability and long-term arrangements over expedient solutions, informed by historical experience with failed accords. These divergent strategies create friction before substantive negotiations even commence, complicating the notoriously complex task of achieving consensus on disputed matters.

• Trump advocates rapid dealmaking; Iran prefers deliberate, agreement-focused negotiation methods
• American method stresses leverage and pressure tactics to secure concessions
• Iranian method necessitates comprehensive domestic engagement and careful political navigation before commitment

From nuclear deals to military conflict

The path from the pivotal 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the ongoing military tension represents one of the most consequential foreign policy failures of recent times. The nuclear agreement, meticulously worked out over nearly eighteen months, amounted to a genuine breakthrough in relations between the US and Iran. It provided relief from sanctions in return for stringent restrictions on Iran’s nuclear programme. monitored by UN inspectors. For a short time, it appeared that decades of hostility might eventually lead to realistic diplomacy and shared advantage.

Trump’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 substantially shifted the trajectory of US-Iran relations. His administration reimposed crippling economic sanctions and pursued a strategy of “maximum pressure” designed to force Iran back to the negotiating table on American terms. Rather than capitulating, Tehran progressively decreased its observance of the agreement’s restrictions, developing advanced centrifuges and processing uranium to higher levels. Subsequent endeavours in diplomatic talks, including preliminary talks in June 2025 and February of this year, broke down amid renewed military escalations and joint Israeli-American military actions against Iranian targets.

This record of failed agreements and military escalation has created profound wounds on each party. Iranian decision-makers remain acutely aware that earlier talks ended not in sustained peace but in American withdrawal and fresh pressure. The cycle of diplomatic talks followed by military action has created a credibility gap that any forthcoming accord must ultimately overcome. For negotiations to succeed, both parties must demonstrate they can move beyond this pattern of optimism and letdown.

The leverage game and geographical pressures

Both Washington and Tehran come to the Islamabad talks with divergent negotiating positions and conflicting priorities that will shape every negotiation. The United States enters with significant military capabilities, regional alliances, and sanctions apparatus, yet faces a reduced leverage after extended periods of unsuccessful diplomacy and the financial burden of funding Israel’s armed operations. Iran, meanwhile, holds unconventional strength through its regional proxy network, advanced missile capabilities, and popular support for resistance against American pressure, though its economy remains crippled by sanctions.

The regional dimension introduces considerable complexity to bilateral discussions. Lebanon’s ceasefire remains fragile, with Hezbollah’s role unclear and Israeli military operations continuing despite nominal agreements. Gaza’s humanitarian crisis demands global focus, whilst broader Middle Eastern stability hinges on whether these two powers can find common ground. Neither side can ignore the demands of their respective allies—Israel’s security interests weigh heavily on American calculations, whilst Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and regional partners insist on resistance to alleged American aggression.

What all parties bring to the negotiation table

• United States: Military superiority, financial pressure through sanctions, and security guarantees for allies in the region including Israel.
• Iran: Missile capabilities, proxy forces across the region, and domestic political support for preserving strategic autonomy.
• Ceasefire dynamics: Fragile truces in Lebanon and Gaza create pressure for wider peace negotiations.
• Third-party interests: Saudi Arabia, regional powers, and international community seeking stability and reduced tensions.

Echoes of courageous adaptability and ambiguous power

The diplomatic approaches of Vance and Ghalibaf are scarcely more distinct, a reality that may potentially enable significant progress or cause complete breakdown. Trump’s administration, through Vance, champions what it describes as “heroic flexibility”—a willingness to step back from the negotiating table if demands aren’t met, coupled with unpredictable decision-making that leaves opponents uncertain. This approach differs markedly from Iran’s more conventional negotiating approach, which emphasises building consensus, detailed engagement with various centres of power, and extended consideration before agreements are reached. The clash between these two styles could be either constructive, compelling both parties to cut through rhetoric and reach pragmatic solutions, or severely damaging, triggering misunderstandings and early breakdown.

Ghalibaf’s position as Parliamentary Speaker, although esteemed, also reflects the fragmented nature of Iranian decision-making authority. Unlike Kerry, who spoke with explicit support from the Obama administration, Ghalibaf must navigate Iran’s intricate distribution of power, where the Supreme Leader holds final authority and the Revolutionary Guards maintain considerable influence over security matters. This structural fact means that even if Vance and Ghalibaf forge genuine rapport and preliminary understandings, converting those agreements into enforceable policy outcomes proves highly unpredictable. Iran’s negotiators traditionally function within tightly defined parameters set by senior leadership, limiting their flexibility at the table.

Trump’s earlier abandonment of the JCPOA in 2018 haunts these discussions like an restless spectre. Iranian officials and their global counterparts remember vividly how years of meticulous negotiation were abandoned by presidential decree. This historical trauma fundamentally shapes Tehran’s approach, making any agreement dependent on ironclad guarantees that a future American administration cannot easily abandon. Establishing these safeguards whilst navigating Trump’s volatile choices represents perhaps the greatest challenge facing both delegations.