ISLAMABAD:
No sign of the next round of talks between Iran and the US right now. Still, security details remain intact in Islamabad.
This suggests that the door to a diplomatic breakthrough, however narrow, is not completely closed, even as uncertainty continues to hang over the next phase of negotiations.
“There is no positive move, but no negative move either,” a source said, referring to the security detail on the ground amid radio silence, regarding the next round of talks.
If all went according to plan, U.S. and Iranian negotiators would have been tight-lipped on Wednesday trying to hammer out a potential deal.
Pakistan were confident as they had done a lot of spade work through the backchannels since the first round ended without a breakthrough.
Where did it go wrong?
Until Tuesday afternoon, the plan had already been finalized. Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner had to fly from Miami first. Then Vice President JD Vance’s plane was due to take off from Washington.
The press corps accompanying Vance was instructed to be ready to depart around 9:00 a.m. Washington time (6:00 p.m. PST).
Not that the plan was final, but multiple sources said security assets and details put on the ground in Islamabad were typical of accompanying the US president’s movement.
That meant the US was ready if Trump decided to fly in.
But then things began to fray. The US side, which shared some new proposals via Pakistan with Iran, wanted a clear response from Tehran before Vance left for Islamabad.
The US wanted the second round to show progress, if not reach a final settlement.
At first, Iran was inclined to consent. That was the reason why Pakistan had put in place all the security arrangements. The American advance teams had landed.
But as the stage was set for negotiations, Iran announced, first through state media and then officially, that it would not participate in the talks, accusing the United States of violating the terms of the ceasefire.
The Iranian precondition for a US naval blockade was not the only problem.
Intense backchannel diplomacy has been underway to break the deadlock. Some obvious traits too.
Some notable and public developments include Wednesday’s meeting between the Iranian ambassador with the prime minister and today’s interaction between the acting US envoy and the interior secretary.
What has emerged so far is that it is not just certain issues that escape the resumption of negotiations, but a wider divergent approach.
The US simply wants a quick solution. Trump is eager to seal the deal, sign it, and that’s it.
Iran, meanwhile, is not inclined to rush a deal. It wants gradual progress, a step-by-step approach.
Pakistan, as a lead mediator, does not want the ongoing diplomatic process to be open. It wants to take the process to its logical conclusion.
The Teheran visit of the field marshal, who was supposed to spend one day but stayed there for three days, was precisely intended for the same.
The proposals and new ideas Trump has talked about, and the wait for Iran’s comprehensive response, point to the desire for an ultimate deal.
While Iran is reluctant to join the talks, it is believed to still be considering the option.
Some within Iranian ranks tend to believe that a deal in its current form will be a tough sell domestically.
But then, deep down, there is also a recognition that Iran needs a breather. It may have withstood Israeli and American might, but the damage to the economy and infrastructure is enormous.
Far from the public rhetoric, the news of the extension of the ceasefire was welcomed by ordinary Iranians. They understand the pain and suffering of this war.
The extension of the ceasefire is a relief, and at least there will not be an immediate escalation.
Messages have still been exchanged. Efforts are being made to save the agreement at the last minute.
The problem, however, is the slow channels of communication between Iran’s supreme leader and the negotiating team.
The other key aspect of this war is that, unlike previous conflicts, this war cannot end in a stalemate. One side must prevail over the other.
Suppose the war ends in a prolonged stalemate. Iran continues to exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz, while the United States maintains a naval blockade. This situation is not sustainable as it will drown the global economy without either side firing a single shot.
What this means is that this stalemate must eventually end either through diplomacy or through war. However, both sides want to avoid the path of hostilities.
The deadlock in the Strait of Hormuz may be dangerous, but it is more of a tactical move by both sides than a full-blown escalation.
That’s why it’s not over until it’s over.
