For 21 hours last week, American and Iranian diplomats convened in Islamabad to avert armed conflict. Subsequently, they departed without physical greetings, official agreements, or commitments and returned to their respective nations. The global press labelled this effort as unsuccessful. However, the uncomfortable truth remains, i.e. the objective was never truly intended to be achieved. That is not cynicism. It is simply what happens when two countries that have despised each other for nearly fifty years sit down to resolve not one problem, but twenty, simultaneously, while their armies are still in the field.
Why Pakistan?
The first natural question that comes to mind is: why Islamabad? While Pakistan may not be considered a major diplomatic power, it’s a country with its own unique challenges. It faces significant debt issues, relies on loans from the International Monetary Fund, and balances its relationships carefully between the United States and China. Although it might not have specialised influence over Iranian or American affairs, its position is still quite complex and interesting.
The answer, honestly, is that this was exactly the point. America wasn’t looking for a strong, independent mediator like Turkey or Egypt, who might challenge or unexpectedly influence the outcome. Instead, it preferred a venue it could easily oversee. Pakistan, eager for goodwill and a chance to shine on the global stage, was happy to step in. When the talks fell apart, the blame could be quietly assigned to the host, helping Washington’s reputation stay secure. Islamabad enjoyed its brief moment in the spotlight, and everyone simply went home.
Three Problems with No Easy Answer
Let’s give credit to the talks. The challenges discussed were truly, and almost impossibly, tough. Three major issues stood out. First is Iran’s nuclear programme. The U.S. wants Iran to permanently dismantle its uranium enrichment capacity. Iran views this programme as its ultimate security, the one thing that ensures no one will ever try to overthrow its government. Asking Tehran to give it up is, from their perspective, like asking a man to surrender his only weapon to someone who has been threatening him for decades. The stark examples of Ukraine and North Korea bear this out.
The second is the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil travels every day. Iran sits on its northern shore and has known for a long time that threatening to close it or even hinting at the possibility is its strongest leverage. When that strait is blocked, fuel prices soar everywhere from Mumbai to Manchester.
Lebanon comes third. Iran insisted that Israel halt its military activities in Lebanon before any meaningful talks could start. However, Israel, for different reasons, had no real plan to stop. As a result, even before negotiations officially began, they were stuck in a deadlock over a condition neither side was willing to meet.
War Does Not Pause for Diplomacy
Here’s something truly striking about the Islamabad talks. While the diplomats were busy negotiating inside, the war was still raging outside. Israeli strikes in Lebanon continued nonstop during the negotiations. The number of casualties kept rising. And according to trusted reports, Chinese military aircraft were landing in Tehran in the quiet of the night, bringing air defence equipment to Iran even as its representatives sat at the peace table.
This new reality of modern conflict shows that wars and diplomacy occur simultaneously. Instead of waiting for peace talks, both sides often use conversations as a chance to regroup, rebuild their forces, and strengthen their position before the next round of fighting. Today, the negotiating table and the battlefield are part of the same space, blending the two together.
So What Happens Next?
The honest truth is, things are pretty much staying the same, and that’s not all bad. Neither America nor Iran is eager for a full-scale war because it would be devastating for both sides. Instead, they’re looking for leverage or/and/or an offramp, just enough pressure to encourage the other to come around to a better deal on their own terms. So, what will probably happen is that the talks will pick up again, then stall once more, maybe inch forward slightly, while the lower-level conflicts in Lebanon and the Gulf continue. The real risk here is miscalculation. Just one rogue airstrike, a sudden naval clash in the Strait that gets out of hand, or a hasty decision driven by anger rather than strategy and the delicate balance of managing this crisis could quickly fall apart.
A Mirror, Not a Failure
The Islamabad talks weren’t a failure. Instead, they highlighted something even more valuable. We are now in an era in which major powers have become adept at managing conflict. They prefer to keep tensions simmering rather than letting them escalate into full-blown war, while framing their strategies in diplomatic language. The question is not whether these talks will eventually produce peace. The question is whether the world can keep living comfortably with the alternative.Certainly, a second round of discussions is anticipated to take place on 16 April in Geneva, mediated by Turkey. Will this lead to a permanent peace?
(Brigadier Dr Vijay Sagar Dheman is a senior geopolitical analyst and convenor of the only think tank in Jammu, IIJSA Jammu)
