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

A landmark encounter is occurring in Islamabad this coming days as US Vice-President JD Vance prepares 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 broke their once-strong political relationship. The meeting signals a significant diplomatic gambit as both countries seek to end the territorial dispute creating upheaval across the globe and prevent additional conflict through peaceful resolution. Yet expectations remain cautiously tempered; whilst the talks demonstrate willingness to pursue dialogue, the deep-rooted distrust and wide gaps between the two sides render progress far from assured. The encounter comes amid a unstable two-week ceasefire whose terms have already been challenged and violated since announcement.

A significant moment fraught with suspicion

The photograph, should it surface, would be momentous. Yet the symbolism of two high-ranking diplomats standing side by side offers no promise of warmth or accord. The men may not smile. They may not even exchange handshakes. Such a gesture would not suddenly reverse the decades of hostility that have shaped US-Iran relations since the revolution, nor would it suddenly dissolve the core differences that have kept them apart. What it would signal, however, is something arguably more important: a common understanding that diplomacy remains worth attempting, even in the darkest moments.

This meeting represents the most substantial top-tier discussions since President Trump pulled out of 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 broadly celebrated as a international policy success. Later attempts during President Biden’s administration gained minimal ground. Now, with Trump returning to office and regional tensions at fever pitch, both sides face mounting pressure to examine if dialogue can succeed where earlier efforts have stalled.

• Prior talks in June 2025 and February were disrupted by US-Israeli armed interventions
• The two nations utilise distinctly contrasting negotiating styles and strategic approaches
• Tehran holds profound mistrust rooted in ongoing diplomatic failures and broken agreements
• Wide substantive gaps persist 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 present starkly contrasting philosophies to the talks. President Trump has often claimed of utilising the finest dealmakers, championing swift, transactional approaches that emphasise tangible achievements and dramatic breakthroughs. This presents a stark contrast to Iran’s historically more deliberative, collaborative style, which underscores lengthy discussions and close examination of internal political limitations. These fundamental differences in approach have historically complicated previous negotiations and may create similar difficulties.

The lack of trust between Washington and Tehran remains perhaps the most significant barrier. Tehran’s negotiators remain scarred from the precipitous failure of previous peace talks in June 2025 and February, both occasions when joint US-Israeli military action commenced whilst talks were supposedly continuing. This cycle has deepened Iranian doubt about American sincerity and reliability. For many Iranian officials, the process of returning to negotiations requires overcoming fundamental uncertainty about whether the United States is capable of being trusted to uphold any accord reached, most notably given Trump’s abandonment of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Examining differing methods for the table

Trump’s negotiating approach centres on rapid decision-making. His team favours fast-paced negotiations, often seeking rapid compromises and tangible results that can be showcased to the media. This transaction-oriented philosophy prioritises immediate results over the lengthy consensus-seeking that diplomatic engagement historically involves. The American approach emphasises strategic pressure and leverage, arguing that power and urgency drive better outcomes. However, this method can appear reckless and unpredictable to negotiators familiar with leisurely, systematic negotiations.

Iran’s diplomatic tradition emphasises measured deliberation, internal consultation, and step-by-step development. Iranian representatives must navigate complicated home political terrain, accountable to parliament and religious leadership before pledging support. This approach inevitably requires a lengthy period and necessitates careful coordination amongst multiple interest groups. The Iranian methodology emphasises durable agreements and enduring frameworks over quick fixes, drawing on previous dealings with failed accords. These divergent strategies produce discord before meaningful dialogue even commence, complicating the inherently challenging challenge of finding common ground on disputed matters.

• Trump prefers swift deal-making; Iran prefers deliberate, agreement-focused negotiation methods
• American strategy prioritises coercive negotiating tactics to secure agreements
• Iranian style requires thorough internal consultation and careful political navigation before agreement

From nuclear deals to military conflict

The progression from the landmark 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the present armed confrontation constitutes one of the most impactful diplomatic collapses of the past few decades. The nuclear agreement, painstakingly negotiated over approximately eighteen months, constituted a real breakthrough in relations between the US and Iran. It offered relief from sanctions in exchange for rigorous constraints on Iran’s nuclear programme. monitored by international monitors. For a fleeting moment, it seemed that decades of hostility might finally yield to practical diplomacy and common interest.

Trump’s withdrawal from the deal in 2018 significantly changed the trajectory of US-Iran relations. His administration reintroduced harsh financial sanctions and pursued a strategy of “maximum pressure” intended to force Iran back to the negotiation process on American terms. Rather than capitulating, Tehran progressively decreased its adherence to the agreement’s restrictions, creating advanced centrifuges and refining uranium to higher levels. Subsequent endeavours in diplomatic negotiations, 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 created profound wounds on both sides. Iranian policymakers are keenly conscious that previous negotiations concluded without lasting peace but in American withdrawal and renewed 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 sides must demonstrate they can move beyond 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 conflicting priorities that will influence every negotiation. The United States comes with substantial armed forces, strategic partnerships, and sanctions apparatus, yet confronts a reduced leverage after years of failed diplomatic efforts and the costs of funding Israel’s military operations. Iran, on the other hand, maintains unconventional strength through its system of allied proxies, sophisticated missile systems, and internal backing for defiance against American pressure, though its economy stays severely hampered by sanctions.

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

What each party contribute to the negotiation table

• United States: Armed forces dominance, economic sanctions leverage, and security guarantees for regional allies including Israel.
• Iran: Missile capabilities, regional proxy networks, and internal political backing for maintaining strategic independence.
• Ceasefire dynamics: Unstable ceasefires in Lebanon and Gaza create pressure for wider peace negotiations.
• Third-party interests: Saudi Arabia, regional powers, and global actors pursuing stability and reduced tensions.

Traces of heroic flexibility and uncertain authority

The diplomatic approaches of Vance and Ghalibaf are scarcely more different, a fact that may either facilitate breakthrough discussions or cause complete breakdown. Trump’s administration, through Vance, advocates what it describes as “heroic flexibility”—a readiness to walk away from the negotiating table if requirements aren’t satisfied, combined with unpredictable decision-making processes that leaves opponents uncertain. This approach differs markedly from Iran’s more traditional diplomatic methodology, which emphasises building consensus, detailed engagement with multiple power centres, and lengthy deliberation 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 severely damaging, causing confusion and premature collapse.

Ghalibaf’s position as Speaker of Parliament, 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 contend with Iran’s complex power structure, where the Supreme Leader of Iran holds ultimate sway and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps exert substantial control over security matters. This structural fact means that even if Vance and Ghalibaf establish authentic working relationships and tentative agreements, translating those understandings into enforceable policy outcomes remains highly unpredictable. Iran’s negotiators traditionally function within tightly defined parameters established by higher authorities, limiting their flexibility at the table.

Trump’s previous withdrawal of the JCPOA in 2018 haunts these negotiations like an unquiet ghost. Iranian representatives and their global counterparts recall clearly how years of meticulous negotiation were abandoned by presidential decree. This past grievance fundamentally shapes Tehran’s strategy, making any agreement contingent upon binding assurances that a subsequent US government cannot easily abandon. Establishing these safeguards whilst managing Trump’s unpredictable decision-making may well constitute the greatest challenge facing both delegations.