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

A significant meeting 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 highest-level in-person discussions between the two nations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution severed their formerly robust diplomatic partnership. The talks represents a significant political initiative as both countries work to conclude the ongoing tensions sending shockwaves across the globe and avert further escalation through diplomatic agreement. Yet expectations are measured; whilst the talks indicate willingness to pursue negotiations, the deep-rooted distrust and substantial divisions between the two sides make any breakthrough far from assured. The meeting comes amid a fragile temporary halt to hostilities whose terms have already been disputed and breached since announcement.

A momentous moment fraught with suspicion

The photograph, should it surface, would be momentous. Yet the symbolism of two high-ranking diplomats positioned together offers no assurance of mutual goodwill. The men may not smile. They may not even shake hands. Such a action would not fundamentally alter the years of antagonism that have defined US-Iran relations since the revolution, nor would it quickly eliminate the core differences that have kept them apart. What it would signal, however, is something perhaps more valuable: a common understanding that pursuing dialogue remains worthwhile, even in the most challenging times.

This meeting represents the most substantial senior-level talks since President Trump pulled out of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal during his first term, dismissing it as the “worst deal in history.” That agreement, painstakingly negotiated over approximately 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 foreign policy triumph. Following initiatives during President Biden’s administration achieved limited progress. Now, with Trump resuming the presidency and local conflicts at critical levels, both sides confront escalating pressure to examine if dialogue can succeed where past initiatives have fallen short.

• Earlier negotiations in June 2025 and February were disrupted by US-Israeli military operations
• The two nations adopt distinctly contrasting negotiating styles and strategic methods
• Tehran maintains profound mistrust arising from repeated diplomatic disappointments and violated commitments
• Significant substantive differences persist between American and Iranian positions on fundamental matters

The gap between negotiating styles and mutual trust

When the two delegations eventually meet across from one another, they will present starkly divergent philosophies to the negotiation process. President Trump has often claimed of engaging the top deal-makers, favouring quick, transaction-oriented strategies that emphasise visible wins and major breakthroughs. This differs markedly to Iran’s historically more deliberative, consensus-building style, which emphasises extended talks and thorough assessment of home political considerations. These core distinctions in approach have traditionally hindered earlier discussions and may create similar difficulties.

The lack of trust between Washington and Tehran persists as perhaps the most substantial hurdle. Tehran’s negotiators remain scarred from the precipitous failure of previous diplomatic initiatives in June 2025 and February, both occasions when American-Israeli military strikes commenced whilst talks were supposedly continuing. This pattern has reinforced Iranian doubt about American sincerity and reliability. For many Iranian officials, the very act of returning to negotiations requires overcoming deep-seated concerns about whether the United States can be trusted to fulfil any deal reached, most notably given Trump’s abandonment of the 2015 nuclear deal.

Contrasting various methods for the table

Trump’s negotiating approach focuses on rapid decision-making. His team prefers rapid deal-making, often seeking quick concessions and demonstrable achievements that can be celebrated publicly. This transaction-oriented philosophy focuses on short-term gains over the slow consensus development that international diplomacy historically involves. The American approach prioritises strategic pressure and leverage, believing that forceful tactics and time pressure yield improved agreements. However, this method can seem erratic and unpredictable to counterparts accustomed to gradual, deliberate approaches.

Iran’s diplomatic heritage prioritises measured deliberation, domestic dialogue, and step-by-step development. Iranian diplomats must navigate intricate internal political dynamics, accountable to legislative assemblies and clerical authorities before pledging support. This process necessarily takes considerable time and necessitates precise alignment amongst different political camps. The Iranian methodology emphasises durable agreements and enduring frameworks over expedient solutions, drawing on past encounters with broken agreements. These conflicting approaches generate tension before substantive discussions even begin, complicating the notoriously complex undertaking of locating shared positions on controversial topics.

• Trump prefers quick negotiations; Iran opts for deliberate, agreement-focused negotiation methods
• American approach prioritises pressure-based leverage strategies to achieve compromises
• Iranian style demands thorough internal consultation and careful political navigation before commitment

From nuclear agreements to military confrontation

The path from the historic 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to the ongoing armed confrontation represents one of the most significant foreign policy failures of the past few decades. The nuclear pact, painstakingly negotiated over roughly a year and a half, amounted to a real breakthrough in American-Iranian relations. It promised relief from sanctions in return to rigorous constraints on Iran’s nuclear programme. supervised by international monitors. For a fleeting moment, it looked that years of tension might at last give way to pragmatic diplomacy and common interest.

Trump’s exit from the deal in 2018 substantially shifted the trajectory of US-Iran relations. His administration reimposed harsh financial sanctions and pursued a policy of “maximum pressure” intended to force Iran back to the talks on American terms. Rather than conceding, Tehran incrementally cut back its adherence to the agreement’s restrictions, developing advanced centrifuges and processing uranium to elevated degrees. Subsequent efforts toward diplomatic negotiations, including opening discussions in June 2025 and February of this year, broke down amid fresh military tensions and Israeli-American military strikes against Iranian targets.

This record of failed agreements and military escalation has left deep scars on each party. Iranian decision-makers remain acutely aware that previous negotiations concluded without lasting peace but in American withdrawal and renewed pressure. The pattern of diplomatic engagement followed by military strikes has created a credibility gap that any forthcoming accord must somehow bridge. For negotiations to succeed, both sides must demonstrate they can move beyond this cycle of hope and disappointment.

The power dynamics and regional demands

Both Washington and Tehran come to the Islamabad talks with conflicting interests and divergent goals that will determine every negotiation. The United States enters with significant military capabilities, regional alliances, and sanctions infrastructure, yet faces a reduced leverage after prolonged diplomatic failures and the costs of funding Israel’s armed operations. Iran, meanwhile, possesses asymmetrical power through its regional proxy network, advanced missile capabilities, and popular support for resistance against American pressure, though its economic situation continues to be devastated by sanctions.

The regional dimension introduces substantial 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 crisis requires global focus, whilst broader Middle Eastern stability hinges on whether these two powers can reach agreement. Neither side can ignore the expectations 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 perceived American aggression.

What each party bring to negotiations

• United States: Armed forces dominance, economic sanctions leverage, and security guarantees for regional allies including Israel.
• Iran: Ballistic missile arsenal, regional proxy networks, and internal political backing for preserving strategic autonomy.
• Ceasefire dynamics: Fragile truces in Lebanon and Gaza create pressure for wider peace negotiations.
• Third-party interests: Saudi Arabia, other regional states, and international community seeking stability and lower levels of tension.

Remnants of courageous adaptability and uncertain authority

The diplomatic approaches of Vance and Ghalibaf are scarcely more distinct, a reality that may either enable significant progress or cause complete breakdown. Trump’s government, through Vance, advocates what it terms “heroic flexibility”—a readiness to step back from the negotiating table if demands aren’t met, combined with unpredictable decision-making that keeps adversaries guessing. This strategy differs markedly from Iran’s more traditional diplomatic methodology, which stresses consensus-building, careful consultation with multiple power centres, and lengthy deliberation before agreements are reached. The clash between these two styles could be either constructive, forcing both sides to cut through rhetoric and reach pragmatic solutions, or severely damaging, triggering misunderstandings and premature collapse.

Ghalibaf’s role as Speaker of Parliament, whilst esteemed, also demonstrates the fractured character of Iranian decision-making authority. Unlike Kerry, who spoke with clear backing from the Obama administration, Ghalibaf must navigate Iran’s intricate distribution of power, where the Supreme Leader exercises ultimate sway and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps maintain considerable influence over security matters. This structural fact means that even if Vance and Ghalibaf establish genuine rapport and preliminary understandings, converting those agreements into binding policy remains deeply uncertain. Iran’s negotiators traditionally operate within strictly prescribed boundaries established by higher authorities, limiting their room for manoeuvre in negotiations.

Trump’s previous withdrawal of the JCPOA in 2018 haunts these discussions like an unquiet ghost. Iranian officials and their global counterparts recall clearly how years of meticulous negotiation were discarded 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 navigating Trump’s unpredictable decision-making may well constitute the most significant obstacle confronting the two sides.