As the United States and Iran prepare for direct negotiations in Islamabad on April 11, the talks are unfolding under deeply unstable and contradictory conditions. While the meeting is being framed as a step toward de-escalation after weeks of intense conflict, the circumstances surrounding it raise serious doubts about whether any meaningful or lasting outcome can be achieved.
The proposed dialogue follows a short-lived ceasefire that emerged after a devastating phase of conflict triggered by the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Although the truce briefly opened a diplomatic window, it collapsed almost immediately, exposing the complexity of a conflict that extends far beyond a simple bilateral confrontation. Within hours of the ceasefire announcement, hostilities resumed across the region, most notably through large-scale Israeli strikes in Lebanon, which significantly altered the trajectory of the situation.
At the core of the uncertainty surrounding the talks is a fundamental disagreement over the scope of the conflict itself. Iran views the war as a connected, region-wide confrontation involving multiple fronts, including Lebanon and groups such as Hezbollah. From Tehran’s perspective, any ceasefire or negotiation that does not include a halt to operations in Lebanon is incomplete and unacceptable. This position is reflected in its negotiating framework, which places strong emphasis on ending attacks against its regional allies.
In contrast, the United States and Israel have adopted a narrower interpretation, treating the ceasefire as limited to direct US-Iran hostilities while excluding Lebanon from its scope. Israeli leadership has made it clear that military operations against Hezbollah will continue regardless of any agreement with Tehran. This divergence is not a minor technical disagreement but a structural fault line that directly undermines the basis for negotiations.
Developments on the ground have further widened this gap. Israel’s intensified strikes in Lebanon following the ceasefire announcement have reinforced Iran’s perception that the agreement is being selectively applied or disregarded. Tehran has responded with strong warnings, including signalling that continued attacks could jeopardise both the ceasefire and its participation in diplomatic talks. Actions such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz underscore the extent to which military and economic pressure are being used alongside diplomacy.
Another critical limitation of the talks is the absence of Israel from the negotiating table, despite being a central actor in the conflict, particularly on the Lebanon front. This creates a structural imbalance in the process. Any agreement reached between the US and Iran may face immediate challenges if a key participant in the conflict is neither bound by nor directly involved in the negotiated terms. This absence weakens the enforceability and credibility of any potential settlement.
The composition of the delegations also reflects both seriousness and tension. The United States is sending a high-level team led by Vice President JD Vance, while Iran is expected to be represented by senior political and diplomatic figures. However, internal ambiguity within Iran, reflected in mixed signals about participation, suggests that consensus within its leadership may not be fully aligned, further complicating negotiations.
Beyond these structural issues, a deeper problem lies in the lack of trust between the parties. Both Washington and Tehran are attempting to negotiate from positions of perceived strength, maintaining maximalist demands while simultaneously engaging in dialogue. This dynamic reduces flexibility and makes compromise more difficult, especially when coupled with ongoing military activity.
In this context, the Islamabad talks appear less like a stable pathway to peace and more like a high-risk attempt to manage escalation. The contradictions between battlefield realities and diplomatic intentions remain unresolved. As long as one side treats Lebanon as central to the conflict while the other treats it as peripheral, and as long as key actors remain outside the negotiation framework, the prospects for a comprehensive and durable agreement remain limited.
The talks may still serve a purpose in preventing immediate escalation or opening channels of communication, but without alignment on core issues and broader participation, their ability to deliver a lasting resolution remains highly uncertain.
