Could the Islamabad talks end 48 years of hostility between the US and Iran?

Could the Islamabad talks end 48 years of hostility between the US and Iran? Submitted by Seyed Hossein Mousavian on Fri, 04/10/2026 - 07:23 It remains uncertain whether the two-week pause reflects a genuine effort to pursue diplomacy or simply time to replenish weapons stockpiles before renewed military action People look towards a television screen on a local channel as Pakistan prepares to host the US and Iran for peace talks in Islamabad, Pakistan, 10 April, 2026 (Reuters) On After 40 days of intense military confrontation between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other, the sudden announcement of a two-week ceasefire has raised a central question: what compelled the parties to pause the war at this stage?  The ceasefire did not emerge from a single development, but from a combination of military, strategic, political, and economic realities that reshaped the calculations of the actors involved. At the same time, the truce remains fragile, and its future will depend on several critical factors. According to emerging reports, high-level negotiations could take place in Islamabad on Saturday, reportedly involving the speaker of Iranian parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, and US Vice President JD Vance. If confirmed, such a meeting would represent the highest-level direct political engagements between the two sides after 48 years, and could help test whether the ceasefire will open the path to serious negotiations or merely serve as a temporary pause in hostilities. Several major developments help explain why the ceasefire became possible. First, Iran’s 40 days of resistance and the powerful response of its military forces in what Tehran described as a "war of survival" challenged a long-standing assumption among some advocates of military action in Washington and Tel Aviv: that the Iranian government would collapse quickly under sustained military attack. For decades, this assumption served as a central argument for those advocating military confrontation with Iran. The events of the war appear to have weakened that premise. Over more than 15 years of academic work at Princeton University, I repeatedly argued in hundreds of articles, interviews, and analyses that such expectations were unrealistic.  New calculations Second, Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz significantly altered the economic and strategic calculations surrounding the war. The strait is one of the most critical chokepoints in the global energy system, through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes. By wresting control of the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has turned the tables on US Read More » During the conflict, fears of disruption in the waterway triggered instability in financial markets and sharp increases in global energy prices. These developments had immediate repercussions far beyond the region, affecting economies in Europe, Asia, and North America. Policymakers were therefore forced to confront the possibility that a prolonged war with Iran could produce severe global economic consequences. Third, a large-scale operation reportedly conducted by the United States involving more than 150 aircraft failed to achieve one of its key objectives: seizing approximately 450 kilograms of Iran’s 60 percent enriched uranium. According to reports, the mission was carried out under the cover of rescuing a pilot but ultimately failed to secure the targeted nuclear material. The failure of such a complex operation underscored the operational challenges of attempting to eliminate or capture sensitive elements of Iran’s nuclear programme by military means. Political dynamics  Also, domestic developments inside Iran have influenced the trajectory of the conflict. Contrary to expectations among some planners that military pressure might trigger widespread unrest or political destabilisation, large numbers of Iranians took to the streets in support of national unity and resistance against foreign attack. Direct negotiations and comprehensive dialogue addressing nuclear, regional, and bilateral issues could create a real opportunity for a durable agreement At the same time, many Iranians living abroad joined campaigns opposing the war against Iran. This reaction complicated scenarios that had anticipated internal unrest as a result of military strikes. Iran’s security forces maintained firm control over the country’s borders during the conflict. One of the concerns during wartime instability is the possibility that terrorist or militant groups might attempt to exploit the situation by infiltrating the country and creating chaos. Iranian forces appear to have prevented such scenarios from materialising, thereby avoiding the emergence of a broader internal security crisis. The political dynamics in the United States and internationally also contributed to the decision to pause the war. As the conflict continued, opposition among segments of the American public increased and criticism from political figures grew. International public opinion in many countries also shifted toward greater opposition to the continuation of hostilities. The potential domestic political consequences in the United States, including the possibility of electoral setbacks in the November elections, likely factored into Washington’s calculations. Fragile and uncertain The expanding regional dimensions of the conflict played a decisive role. The war inflicted significant damage on multiple sides. Iran targeted Israel, US military facilities, and positions associated with allied countries in the region, while the United States and Israel carried out extensive strikes inside Iran. "The war is turning Iran into a major world power," wrote the New York Times. The cumulative damage suffered by all sides and the risk of further escalation into a broader regional war appear to have encouraged a temporary halt to hostilities. 'Suez moment': US missteps in Iran echo across East Asia to the Gulf and Europe Read More » These developments explain why a ceasefire became acceptable after 40 days of fighting. Yet, the ceasefire itself is fragile and uncertain, and its sustainability will depend on several critical factors. First, the framework of the ceasefire and possible negotiations remains unclear. It is not known whether the talks will be based on the United States's reported 15-point proposal, Iran’s ten-point plan, or a combination of both. Moreover, positions expressed by Washington and Tel Aviv appear to differ from what Pakistan, acting as mediator, has described, raising doubts about whether the parties share a common negotiating framework. Second, the key unknown is Washington’s political will. It remains uncertain whether the two-week pause reflects a genuine effort to pursue diplomacy or simply time to replenish weapons stockpiles before renewed military action. This skepticism is rooted in several precedents: the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) despite Iran’s compliance and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verification; the 2025 military attack; and the 2026 war launched even as negotiations were reportedly progressing. Third, Iran–US engagement in the coming weeks will be decisive. Direct negotiations and comprehensive dialogue addressing nuclear, regional, and bilateral issues could create a real opportunity for a durable agreement. Additionally, Israel’s role will be critical. Israel has often opposed efforts to improve Iran–US relations, and it remains unclear whether it will again disrupt diplomacy. Its attacks on Lebanon indicate it wishes to prevent an agreement. Face-saving deal Regional alignments have also shifted, with the United Arab Emirates developing a close strategic partnership with Israel. Notably, on the first day after the ceasefire, the UAE publicly opposed the pause.   Also, the position of the Persian Gulf countries will be crucial. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that five Gulf states cooperated with the US–Israel war against Iran, and none has publicly denied this claim. How Trump's regime has become captive to its own lies Read More » The key question is whether these countries are ready to engage in comprehensive negotiations with Iran toward a new framework for regional security and cooperation in the Persian Gulf, including arrangements for safe navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Finally, domestic political dynamics in Iran will shape the prospects for diplomacy. In Iran, a segment of people oppose the ceasefire and favour continuing the war. Leaders, therefore, need an agreement that is politically defensible at home. For diplomacy to succeed, direct Iran–US talks will be essential. Negotiations should address a comprehensive agenda - including nuclear, regional, and bilateral issues - through a phased approach that allows confidence to build gradually. The current channel also offers a rare opportunity. On the US side, Vice President JD Vance represents a credible, senior, and authorised political figure speaking directly for Trump. On the Iranian side, figures such as Ghalibaf and Mohammad Bagher Zolghar, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council - both senior commanders of Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) - represent Iran’s most influential security institutions. Their presence creates a unique opportunity for Washington to negotiate with officials who possess power and authority within Iran’s strategic decision-making structure. This level of representation could give both sides the authority needed to make difficult decisions. Ultimately, any agreement must also provide a face-saving outcome for all parties, enabling each side to present the result as consistent with its national interests. Only under such conditions can the current ceasefire evolve into a durable settlement rather than another temporary pause in a long conflict. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye. War on Iran Opinion Post Date Override 0 Update Date Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:29 Update Date Override 0