Majid Rafizadeh: Historic US-Iran negotiations in Pakistan, without a resolution

For the first time in decades, senior officials from both sides met directly, face-to-face, in Islamabad. This alone represented a major shift in diplomatic engagement, breaking a long-standing pattern of indirect talks conducted through intermediaries.

Yet despite the historic nature of the meeting, the outcome was ultimately one of disappointment. After more than 20 hours of intensive negotiations, both sides walked away without an agreement. US officials confirmed that the talks ended without resolution, particularly on the central issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

Still, the significance of this meeting should not be underestimated. Even without a deal, it has opened the door to potential future direct diplomacy. The psychological and political barrier of direct engagement has now been broken.

Deep structural gap between Washington and Tehran

The failure of the talks can largely be traced to a fundamental and seemingly irreconcilable difference: the nature of Iran’s nuclear program. The United States has insisted on a complete halt to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, seeking full dismantlement or at least a permanent prohibition on enrichment capabilities. From Washington’s perspective, anything short of this leaves open the possibility of weaponization.

 

 

The failure of the talks can largely be traced to a fundamental and seemingly irreconcilable difference: the nature of Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran, however, has firmly rejected this demand. Tehran continues to assert its right to pursue nuclear technology and views US demands as excessive and rooted in distrust. This core disagreement proved to be the decisive obstacle in negotiations.

At the same time, disagreements emerged over control and access to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global energy shipments. These layered disputes made compromise even more difficult.

Trump’s naval blockade

Following the collapse of negotiations, Donald Trump announced a US naval blockade of Iran. A naval blockade, in practical terms, means that the US Navy will attempt to control or restrict maritime traffic in and out of the Strait of Hormuz. This includes intercepting vessels, clearing mines, and potentially preventing ships that comply with Iranian demands – such as paying transit tolls – from passing through.

The implications for Iran are profound. Politically, it challenges Tehran’s claim to control the Strait and undermines its regional influence. Economically, the impact could be devastating. Iran’s already fragile economy – strained by sanctions, war damage, and inflation – relies heavily on oil exports. A blockade threatens to choke off this lifeline, further isolating the country from global markets.

Economic pressure and global consequences

Iran’s economy was already under severe stress before the blockade announcement, weakened currency, reduced government revenues, and increased domestic discontent. The blockade intensifies these pressures by targeting the country’s most critical economic sector: energy exports.

But the consequences are not limited to Iran. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important chokepoints in the global economy, with roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil passing through it. Any disruption – whether from Iranian actions or US enforcement – immediately affects global oil prices and economic stability.

Scenario one: Escalation and renewed war

One possible path forward is escalation. If Iran chooses to respond militarily – by targeting US naval vessels, launching missiles, or deploying drones against shipping – the fragile ceasefire could collapse rapidly. Such actions would likely trigger a strong US response.

Iran retains some asymmetric capabilities, including fast attack boats, mines, and drones, many of which have already been used in the conflict. The risk of miscalculation is high, especially in a congested and militarized environment like the Strait.

Scenario two: Managed de-escalation and open transit

Another scenario is more cautiously optimistic. Iran could choose to allow ships to pass freely through the Strait, reducing tensions and avoiding direct confrontation.

Such a framework would effectively restore freedom of navigation while postponing deeper disagreements. It would not resolve the nuclear issue or broader geopolitical tensions, but it could stabilize the immediate crisis and prevent further escalation.

This scenario would also provide both sides with a face-saving off-ramp. The US could claim success in ensuring open shipping lanes, while Iran could maintain its position without formally conceding to US demands. However, this outcome would likely be temporary, as underlying issues remain unresolved.

Another critical question moving forward is sustainability. How long can the United States maintain a naval blockade without facing significant economic and political costs? The longer the blockade continues, the greater the impact on global oil markets, inflation, and economic stability.

READ: Yousef al-Dayni: Hormuz is test for the world

Tehran may believe that the United States, under pressure from global markets and domestic economic concerns, will eventually ease its position. By avoiding direct confrontation and allowing time to pass, Iran could hope to outlast the blockade. At the same time, prolonged uncertainty increases volatility, and raises the risk of escalation.

An unresolved crisis with persistent risks

Ultimately, the situation remains unresolved. Two central issues continue to drive tensions: control over the Strait of Hormuz and the future of Iran’s nuclear program. Neither of these has been settled, and both are deeply tied to national security on each side. This means that the current standoff is not a conclusion, but a phase in an ongoing conflict. Even if immediate tensions ease, the underlying disputes will continue to shape US-Iran relations.

Perhaps most concerning is the ever-present risk of miscalculation. In a highly militarized environment, a single incident – a drone strike, a naval clash, or a misinterpreted signal – could again reignite the war involving the United States, Iran, and Israel.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Maghrebi.org. Dr Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated political scientist, specializing in US foreign policy and the Middle East. You can follow him on X: @Dr_Rafizadeh. This articles was originally published on Al Arabiya.

If you wish to pitch an opinion piece, please send your article to opinion@maghrebi.org.