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

A significant encounter is taking place in Islamabad this weekend as US Vice-President JD Vance is set to meet Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf—marking the top-tier in-person discussions between the two nations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution severed their formerly robust strategic alliance. The talks constitutes a major strategic move as both countries seek to end the territorial dispute sending shockwaves across the globe and avert additional conflict through negotiated settlement. Yet expectations stay cautiously tempered; whilst the talks demonstrate commitment to discussion, the deep-rooted distrust and significant differences between the two sides leave resolution far from certain. The meeting comes amid a fragile two-week ceasefire whose terms have already been challenged and broken since announcement.

A momentous moment laden with suspicion

The photograph, should it materialise, would be momentous. Yet the symbolic weight of two high-ranking diplomats standing side by side offers no assurance of warmth or accord. The men may not smile. They may not even exchange handshakes. Such a move would not fundamentally alter the prolonged animosity that have shaped US-Iran relations since the revolution, nor would it immediately resolve the fundamental disagreements that have prevented reconciliation. What it would signal, however, is something arguably more important: a common understanding that diplomatic engagement is still viable, even in the bleakest periods.

This meeting marks the most significant top-tier discussions since President Trump exited the landmark 2015 nuclear deal during his first term, characterizing it as the “worst deal in history.” That pact, painstakingly negotiated 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 diplomatic achievement. Subsequent efforts during President Biden’s administration gained minimal ground. Now, with Trump returning to office and regional tensions at critical levels, both sides confront escalating pressure to investigate whether dialogue can succeed where earlier efforts have faltered.

• Earlier negotiations in June 2025 and February were disrupted by US-Israeli armed interventions
• The two nations adopt distinctly contrasting approaches to negotiation and strategic methods
• Tehran maintains profound mistrust stemming from repeated diplomatic disappointments and failed accords
• Significant substantive differences remain between American and Iranian positions on key points

The gulf between bargaining methods and mutual trust

When the two delegations finally sit across from one another, they will bring starkly contrasting philosophies to the negotiation process. President Trump has frequently asserted of engaging the top deal-makers, favouring rapid, deal-focused methods that prioritise concrete victories and dramatic breakthroughs. This presents a stark contrast to Iran’s historically more deliberative, collaborative style, which stresses lengthy discussions and careful consideration of home political considerations. These core distinctions in approach have historically complicated earlier discussions and may create similar difficulties.

The trust deficit between Washington and Tehran remains perhaps the most substantial hurdle. Tehran’s negotiators carry fresh wounds from the abrupt collapse of previous peace talks in June 2025 and February, both occasions when American-Israeli military strikes commenced whilst talks were nominally in progress. This cycle has reinforced Iranian scepticism about American good faith and dependability. For many Iranian officials, the very act of returning to negotiations necessitates addressing deep-seated concerns about whether the United States can be relied upon to uphold any accord reached, especially considering Trump’s withdrawal of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Examining differing strategies regarding the table

Trump’s negotiating approach emphasises speed and decisiveness. His team advocates for quick deal completion, often pursuing rapid compromises and demonstrable achievements that can be highlighted in public. This transaction-oriented philosophy focuses on quick outcomes over the slow consensus development that diplomatic engagement traditionally demands. The US strategy values leverage and pressure, believing that power and urgency drive better outcomes. However, this method can seem erratic and unpredictable to counterparts accustomed to leisurely, systematic negotiations.

Iran’s negotiating legacy prioritises measured deliberation, consultation within government, and step-by-step development. Iranian representatives must manage intricate internal political dynamics, answering to legislative assemblies and clerical authorities before pledging support. This approach inevitably requires time and necessitates careful coordination amongst different political camps. The Iranian approach emphasises durable agreements and enduring frameworks over expedient solutions, informed by historical experience with violated commitments. These divergent strategies create friction before substantive negotiations even begin, complicating the already difficult challenge of locating shared positions on disputed matters.

• Trump prefers swift deal-making; Iran opts for methodical, consensus-based negotiation processes
• American strategy emphasises coercive negotiating tactics to achieve agreements
• Iranian method requires thorough internal consultation and careful political navigation before commitment

From atomic accords to military conflict

The progression from the pivotal 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the present military tension constitutes one of the most consequential diplomatic collapses of the past few decades. The nuclear accord, meticulously worked out over approximately eighteen months, constituted a real breakthrough in relations between the US and Iran. It promised relief from sanctions in exchange for stringent restrictions on the Iranian nuclear programme. supervised by international monitors. For a brief moment, it looked that long-standing animosity might finally yield to realistic diplomacy and common interest.

Trump’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 significantly changed the trajectory of US-Iran relations. His administration reinstated crippling economic sanctions and pursued a approach of “maximum pressure” intended to force Iran back to the negotiating table on American terms. Rather than capitulating, Tehran gradually reduced its observance of the agreement’s restrictions, creating advanced centrifuges and enriching uranium to higher levels. Subsequent attempts at diplomatic negotiations, including initial discussions in June 2025 and February of this year, collapsed amid intensified military conflicts and Israeli-American military operations against Iranian targets.

This record of failed accords and military buildup has left deep scars on each party. Iranian policymakers are keenly conscious that earlier talks ended not in sustained peace but in American withdrawal and fresh pressure. The pattern of diplomatic engagement followed by military strikes has established a trust deficit that any forthcoming accord must ultimately overcome. For talks to work, both parties must demonstrate they can move beyond this cycle of hope and disappointment.

The power dynamics and regional demands

Both Washington and Tehran arrive at the Islamabad talks with divergent negotiating positions and divergent goals that will determine every negotiation. The United States comes with significant military capabilities, regional alliances, and sanctions apparatus, yet encounters a weakened position after extended periods of unsuccessful diplomacy and the financial burden of funding Israel’s military operations. Iran, on the other hand, maintains asymmetric capabilities through its regional proxy network, sophisticated missile systems, and internal backing for resistance against American pressure, though its economic standing stays severely hampered by sanctions.

The geographical dimension introduces substantial complexity to two-way discussions. Lebanon’s ceasefire remains fragile, with Hezbollah’s role uncertain and Israeli military operations ongoing despite nominal agreements. Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe requires international attention, whilst broader Middle Eastern security hinges on whether these two powers can find common ground. Neither side can ignore the demands of their respective allies—Israel’s security concerns weigh heavily on American calculations, whilst Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and regional partners insist on resistance to alleged American aggression.

What both sides bring to negotiations

• United States: Military superiority, financial pressure through sanctions, and protective commitments for allies in the region including Israel.
• Iran: Missile capabilities, proxy forces across the region, and internal political backing for preserving strategic autonomy.
• Ceasefire dynamics: Unstable ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza create pressure for wider peace negotiations.
• Third-party interests: Saudi Arabia, regional powers, and international community seeking stability and reduced tensions.

Echoes of heroic flexibility and ambiguous power

The diplomatic approaches of Vance and Ghalibaf are scarcely more different, a reality that may potentially enable significant progress or derail them entirely. Trump’s administration, through Vance, advocates what it terms “heroic flexibility”—a readiness to walk away from the negotiating table if requirements aren’t satisfied, combined with unpredictable decision-making that leaves opponents uncertain. This strategy contrasts sharply with Iran’s more traditional diplomatic methodology, which emphasises consensus-building, careful consultation with multiple power centres, and lengthy deliberation before agreements are reached. The tension between these two styles could prove either productive, forcing both sides to move beyond rhetoric and reach pragmatic solutions, or severely damaging, triggering misunderstandings and early breakdown.

Ghalibaf’s position as Speaker of Parliament, although prestigious, also demonstrates the fractured character of Iranian decision-making authority. Unlike Kerry, who spoke with explicit support from the Obama White House, Ghalibaf must contend with 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 institutional reality means that even if Vance and Ghalibaf establish authentic working relationships and tentative agreements, translating those understandings into binding policy remains deeply uncertain. Iran’s negotiators traditionally operate within strictly prescribed boundaries set by senior leadership, constraining their flexibility at the table.

Trump’s earlier abandonment of the JCPOA in 2018 shadows these negotiations like an unquiet ghost. Iranian representatives and their global counterparts recall clearly how lengthy diplomatic efforts were discarded by executive order. This historical trauma deeply influences Tehran’s approach, making any agreement contingent upon ironclad guarantees that a future American administration cannot easily abandon. Building such assurances whilst managing Trump’s volatile choices represents perhaps the greatest challenge facing both delegations.