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

A significant dialogue is occurring in Islamabad this coming days as US Vice-President JD Vance is set to meet Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf—marking the most senior face-to-face talks between the two nations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution broke their once-strong political relationship. The talks constitutes a substantial strategic move as both countries seek to end the regional conflict sending shockwaves across the globe and avert additional conflict through negotiated settlement. Yet expectations remain modest; whilst the talks signal willingness to pursue dialogue, the deep-rooted distrust and wide gaps between the two sides leave resolution far from assured. The talks comes amid a precarious temporary halt to hostilities whose terms have already been contested and broken since announcement.

A momentous moment characterised by suspicion

The photograph, should it materialise, would be significant. Yet the symbolism of two senior officials standing side by side offers no promise of warmth or accord. The men may not smile. They may not even shake hands. Such a action would not magically transform the prolonged animosity that have shaped US-Iran relations since the revolution, nor would it quickly eliminate the fundamental disagreements that have maintained their separation. What it would signal, however, is something arguably more important: a mutual acknowledgement that diplomatic engagement is still viable, even in the most challenging times.

This meeting constitutes the most substantial senior-level talks since President Trump withdrew from the historic 2015 nuclear deal during his first term, dismissing it as the “worst deal in history.” That accord, arduously hammered out over roughly a year and a half between then-US Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s then-Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, had been universally praised as a international policy success. Subsequent efforts during President Biden’s administration gained minimal ground. Now, with Trump back in power and local conflicts at critical levels, both sides encounter increasing demands to examine if dialogue can succeed where previous attempts have faltered.

• Earlier talks in June 2025 and February faced disruption by US-Israeli military operations
• The two nations utilise distinctly contrasting negotiating styles and strategic methods
• Tehran maintains profound mistrust rooted in repeated diplomatic disappointments and failed accords
• Substantial gaps remain between American and Iranian positions on fundamental matters

The gap between negotiation approaches and confidence

When the two delegations finally sit across from one another, they will introduce starkly opposing philosophies to the negotiation process. President Trump has often claimed of utilising the finest dealmakers, favouring swift, transactional approaches that highlight concrete victories and major breakthroughs. This differs markedly to Iran’s traditionally more measured, agreement-focused style, which stresses lengthy discussions and careful consideration of domestic political constraints. These core distinctions in approach have traditionally hindered earlier discussions and risk repeating this pattern.

The trust deficit between Washington and Tehran remains perhaps the most substantial hurdle. Tehran’s negotiators remain scarred from the abrupt collapse of previous diplomatic initiatives in June 2025 and February, both occasions when joint US-Israeli military action commenced whilst talks were nominally in progress. This pattern has strengthened Iranian distrust about American sincerity and reliability. For many Iranian officials, the very act of returning to negotiations requires overcoming deep-seated concerns about whether the United States can be trusted to honour any agreement reached, especially considering Trump’s withdrawal of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Contrasting various approaches to the table

Trump’s approach to negotiation focuses on swift, decisive action. His team prefers quick deal completion, often requesting quick concessions and demonstrable achievements that can be showcased to the media. This transactional mindset focuses on short-term gains over the lengthy consensus-seeking that international diplomacy traditionally demands. The American negotiating style prioritises power dynamics and pressure, believing that power and urgency produce superior results. However, this style can come across as reckless to negotiators familiar with leisurely, systematic negotiations.

Iran’s diplomatic tradition emphasises measured deliberation, consultation within government, and step-by-step development. Iranian negotiators must manage complicated home political terrain, reporting to legislative assemblies and religious leadership before making commitments. This process necessarily takes considerable time and necessitates precise alignment amongst multiple interest groups. The Iranian approach prioritises durable agreements and enduring frameworks over quick fixes, reflecting previous dealings with broken agreements. These divergent strategies create friction before substantive discussions even start, hampering the inherently challenging challenge of achieving consensus on disputed matters.

• Trump advocates quick negotiations; Iran prefers careful, consensus-driven negotiation approaches
• American method prioritises pressure-based leverage strategies to achieve compromises
• Iranian method demands extensive domestic consultation and careful political navigation before final decision

From atomic accords to armed conflict

The path from the historic 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the present military standoff constitutes one of the most impactful diplomatic collapses of the past few decades. The nuclear accord, carefully negotiated over roughly a year and a half, represented a genuine breakthrough in US-Iranian relations. It provided the lifting of sanctions in return for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme. overseen by international monitors. For a short time, it looked that years of tension might finally yield to realistic diplomacy and shared advantage.

Trump’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 substantially shifted the trajectory of US-Iran relations. His administration reintroduced crippling economic sanctions and pursued a approach of “maximum pressure” meant to force Iran back to the talks on American terms. Rather than conceding, Tehran progressively decreased its adherence to the agreement’s restrictions, producing advanced centrifuges and processing uranium to higher levels. Subsequent attempts at diplomatic talks, including initial discussions in June 2025 and February of this year, fell apart amid intensified military conflicts and Israeli-American military operations against Iranian targets.

This history of broken accords and military buildup has left deep scars on each party. Iranian policymakers remain acutely aware that earlier talks concluded without lasting peace but in American withdrawal and renewed pressure. The pattern of diplomatic engagement followed by military strikes has created a credibility gap that any forthcoming accord must ultimately overcome. For talks to work, both parties must show they are able to transcend this cycle of hope and disappointment.

The power dynamics and regional demands

Both Washington and Tehran attend the Islamabad talks with conflicting interests and conflicting priorities that will determine every negotiation. The United States comes with considerable military strength, established regional partnerships, and sanctions apparatus, yet faces a weakened position after years of failed diplomatic efforts and the financial burden of backing Israel’s military operations. Iran, in contrast, possesses asymmetrical power through its regional proxy network, advanced missile capabilities, and domestic support for resistance against American pressure, though its economic standing stays crippled by sanctions.

The regional dimension introduces considerable complexity to bilateral discussions. Lebanon’s ceasefire stays fragile, with Hezbollah’s role uncertain and Israeli military operations ongoing despite nominal agreements. Gaza’s humanitarian crisis requires global focus, whilst broader Middle Eastern security hinges on whether these two powers can reach agreement. Neither side can ignore the expectations of their respective allies—Israel’s security concerns weigh heavily on American calculations, whilst Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and regional partners demand resistance to alleged American aggression.

What all parties contribute to the negotiation table

• United States: Armed forces dominance, financial pressure through sanctions, and security guarantees for regional allies including Israel.
• Iran: Missile capabilities, proxy forces across the region, and domestic political support for maintaining strategic independence.
• Ceasefire dynamics: Unstable ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza generate momentum for wider peace negotiations.
• Third-party interests: Saudi Arabia, regional powers, and international community seeking stability and reduced tensions.

Traces of heroic flexibility and ambiguous power

The diplomatic approaches of Vance and Ghalibaf could hardly be more distinct, a reality that may potentially enable significant progress or cause complete breakdown. Trump’s administration, through Vance, advocates what it describes as “heroic flexibility”—a readiness 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, careful consultation with multiple power centres, and lengthy deliberation before commitments are made. The tension between these two approaches could be either constructive, compelling both parties to cut through rhetoric and achieve practical outcomes, or severely damaging, causing confusion and premature collapse.

Ghalibaf’s position as Parliamentary Speaker, whilst esteemed, also reflects the fractured character of Iranian authority over decision-making. Unlike Kerry, who communicated with explicit support from the Obama White House, Ghalibaf must navigate Iran’s complex power structure, where the Supreme Leader exercises ultimate sway and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps maintain considerable influence over security matters. This institutional reality means that even if Vance and Ghalibaf establish authentic working relationships and preliminary understandings, converting those agreements into binding policy proves highly unpredictable. Iran’s negotiators historically function within tightly defined parameters established by senior leadership, limiting their room for manoeuvre in negotiations.

Trump’s earlier abandonment of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 shadows these negotiations like an restless spectre. Iranian representatives and their global counterparts recall clearly how lengthy diplomatic efforts were discarded by presidential decree. This historical trauma fundamentally shapes Tehran’s approach, making any deal contingent upon ironclad guarantees that a future American administration cannot simply repudiate. Building such assurances whilst managing Trump’s volatile choices may well constitute the most significant obstacle confronting the two sides.