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

A significant encounter is unfolding in Islamabad this coming days as US Vice-President JD Vance will 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 severed their previously solid strategic alliance. The encounter represents a major political initiative as both countries seek to end the ongoing tensions reverberating across the globe and forestall further escalation through peaceful resolution. Yet expectations stay cautiously tempered; whilst the talks demonstrate openness towards discussion, the deep-rooted distrust and substantial divisions between the two sides leave resolution far from certain. The encounter comes amid a unstable two-week ceasefire whose terms have already been contested and broken since announcement.

A historic moment fraught with suspicion

The photograph, should it surface, would be momentous. Yet the symbolic weight of two high-ranking diplomats standing side by side offers no guarantee of genuine rapport. The men may not smile. They may not even exchange handshakes. Such a action would not fundamentally alter the years of antagonism that have shaped US-Iran relations since the revolution, nor would it suddenly dissolve the underlying disputes that have kept them apart. What it would signal, however, is something perhaps more valuable: a mutual acknowledgement that pursuing dialogue remains worthwhile, even in the darkest moments.

This meeting marks the most substantial senior-level talks since President Trump exited the pivotal 2015 atomic accord during his first term, characterizing it as the “worst deal in history.” That agreement, carefully worked out over nearly eighteen months 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. Following initiatives during President Biden’s administration made little headway. Now, with Trump back in power and area instability at fever pitch, both sides face mounting pressure to explore whether dialogue can succeed where past initiatives have fallen short.

• Earlier talks in June 2025 and February were disrupted by US-Israeli armed interventions
• The two nations adopt distinctly contrasting negotiating styles and strategic methods
• Tehran holds deep distrust arising from ongoing diplomatic failures and broken agreements
• Significant substantive differences remain between American and Iranian stances on core issues

The divide between negotiating styles and confidence

When the two delegations finally sit across from one another, they will introduce starkly opposing philosophies to the negotiating table. President Trump has repeatedly boasted of utilising the best negotiators, preferring swift, transactional approaches that prioritise concrete victories and dramatic breakthroughs. This stands in sharp contrast to Iran’s conventionally more cautious, consensus-building style, which stresses prolonged dialogue and close examination of home political considerations. These essential contrasts in approach have traditionally hindered previous negotiations and threaten to do so again.

The confidence gap between Washington and Tehran persists as perhaps the most formidable obstacle. Tehran’s negotiators carry fresh wounds from the sudden breakdown of previous diplomatic initiatives in June 2025 and February, both times when joint US-Israeli military action commenced whilst talks were supposedly continuing. This pattern has strengthened Iranian doubt about American sincerity and reliability. For many Iranian officials, the very act of returning to negotiations demands surmounting deep-seated concerns about whether the United States is capable of being trusted to uphold any accord reached, particularly given Trump’s abandonment of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Contrasting various strategies regarding the table

Trump’s negotiating approach emphasises swift, decisive action. His team prefers rapid deal-making, often pursuing swift agreements and visible accomplishments that can be celebrated publicly. This transaction-oriented philosophy prioritises quick outcomes over the painstaking consensus-building that global diplomacy historically involves. The US strategy emphasises strategic pressure and leverage, believing that forceful tactics and time pressure drive better outcomes. However, this style can come across as reckless to parties used to leisurely, systematic negotiations.

Iran’s negotiating legacy emphasises restraint, domestic dialogue, and step-by-step development. Iranian representatives must navigate complicated home political terrain, accountable to parliament and spiritual leaders before pledging support. This approach inevitably requires considerable time and requires meticulous synchronisation amongst different political camps. The Iranian approach values durable agreements and enduring frameworks over quick fixes, drawing on historical experience with broken agreements. These conflicting approaches produce discord before substantive negotiations even start, hampering the inherently challenging task of locating shared positions on disputed matters.

• Trump prefers quick negotiations; Iran opts for deliberate, agreement-focused negotiation methods
• American strategy prioritises pressure-based leverage strategies to obtain agreements
• Iranian style demands thorough internal consultation and cautious political manoeuvring before agreement

From atomic accords to military confrontation

The journey from the landmark 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the present armed confrontation constitutes one of the most significant diplomatic collapses of the past few decades. The nuclear agreement, carefully negotiated over roughly a year and a half, represented a genuine breakthrough in American-Iranian relations. It promised relief from sanctions in exchange for strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme. supervised by UN inspectors. For a fleeting moment, it looked that years of tension might at last give way to practical diplomacy and common interest.

Trump’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 significantly changed the trajectory of US-Iran relations. His administration reimposed harsh financial sanctions and pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” meant to force Iran back to the negotiating table on American terms. Rather than backing down, Tehran incrementally cut back its observance of the agreement’s restrictions, creating advanced centrifuges and refining uranium to higher levels. Subsequent efforts toward diplomatic engagement, including initial discussions in June 2025 and February of this year, broke down amid fresh military tensions and joint Israeli-American military actions against Iranian targets.

This history of broken agreements and military escalation has left deep scars on each party. Iranian policymakers are keenly conscious that previous negotiations concluded without lasting peace but in American withdrawal and renewed 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 sides must show they are able to transcend this cycle of hope and disappointment.

The leverage game and geographical pressures

Both Washington and Tehran arrive at the Islamabad talks with competing leverage and divergent goals that will determine every negotiation. The United States comes with considerable military strength, established regional partnerships, and sanctions infrastructure, yet faces a reduced leverage after prolonged diplomatic failures and the costs of supporting Israel’s military campaigns. Iran, on the other hand, holds unconventional strength through its network of regional proxies, advanced missile capabilities, and popular support for opposition against American pressure, though its economic situation stays devastated by sanctions.

The regional dimension adds considerable complexity to bilateral discussions. Lebanon’s ceasefire stays fragile, with Hezbollah’s role unclear and Israeli military operations continuing despite nominal agreements. Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe requires international attention, whilst broader Middle Eastern stability hinges on whether these two powers can find common ground. Neither side can ignore the expectations 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 each party contribute to the negotiation table

• United States: Armed forces dominance, financial pressure through sanctions, and protective commitments for allies in the region including Israel.
• Iran: Missile capabilities, regional proxy networks, 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 global actors seeking stability and lower levels of tension.

Echoes of heroic flexibility and uncertain authority

The diplomatic approaches of Vance and Ghalibaf are scarcely more different, a reality that may potentially facilitate breakthrough discussions or derail them entirely. Trump’s administration, through Vance, advocates what it describes as “heroic flexibility”—a readiness to step back from the table if requirements aren’t satisfied, coupled with unpredictable decision-making that leaves opponents uncertain. This strategy contrasts sharply with Iran’s more traditional negotiating approach, which emphasises consensus-building, detailed engagement with various centres of power, and extended consideration before agreements are reached. The tension between these two approaches could prove either productive, forcing both sides to cut through rhetoric and achieve practical outcomes, or catastrophically counterproductive, triggering misunderstandings and early breakdown.

Ghalibaf’s position as Parliamentary Speaker, although esteemed, also demonstrates the fractured character 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 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps maintain substantial control over security matters. This structural fact means that even if Vance and Ghalibaf establish genuine rapport and preliminary understandings, translating those understandings into enforceable policy outcomes proves highly unpredictable. Iran’s negotiators historically operate within tightly defined parameters set by higher authorities, constraining their flexibility at the table.

Trump’s previous withdrawal of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 shadows these discussions like an restless spectre. Iranian officials and their global counterparts remember vividly how years of meticulous negotiation were discarded by executive order. This historical trauma fundamentally shapes Tehran’s approach, making any agreement contingent upon binding assurances that a subsequent US government cannot simply repudiate. Establishing these safeguards whilst navigating Trump’s volatile choices may well constitute the most significant obstacle confronting the two sides.