Vance Leaves, Questions Remain: What Now For Iran-US War Negotiations

Final Up as a lot as now:April 12, 2026, 12:23 IST

The fashion forward for Strait of Hormuz is now a central downside in US-Iran war negotiations. The closure of the strait modified into a downside handiest after the war began.

The failure of talks between the US and Iran after bigger than 21 hours of negotiations in Islamabad has left Washington going via complicated decisions. Vice President JD Vance used to be unable to stable the concessions the US wanted, but this final end result used to be no longer surprising.

Vance mentioned the two sides were unable to attain a “ample agreement”. He added that the proposed terms were not accepted by Iran. “We have not yet reached an agreement acceptable to the Iranian side,” Vance mentioned, underlining the impasse within the negotiations.

“The spoiled knowledge is that now we maintain got no longer reached an agreement. And I deem that’s spoiled knowledge for Iran a lot bigger than it’s spoiled knowledge for the US,” he said.

Vance added that the US position had been made “as clear as possible” all over the negotiations.

“So we coast support to the US having no longer arrive to an agreement, we’ve made very clear what our pink lines are, what issues we’re moving to accommodate them on, and what issues we’re no longer moving to accommodate them on and we made that as clear as we perhaps could maybe also, and they’ve chosen now to no longer simply earn our terms,” V-P Vance said, adding, ” We negotiated in stunning religion and equipped the very best we could maybe also to the Iranians.”

What’s next?

The collapse of negotiations puts the administration of US President Donald Trump at a crossroads. One option is to enter into a long and complex negotiation with Iran over its nuclear programme. The other is the possibility of returning to conflict, which has already caused major disruption to global energy supplies and raised concerns over control of the Strait of Hormuz.

White House officials have said the next step will be decided by Trump. However, both paths carry serious strategic and political risks.

Vance indicated that the US had presented a final proposal, asking Iran to permanently end its nuclear programme. He said Washington had clearly outlined its red lines and areas where it was willing to show flexibility, but Iran chose not to accept those terms.

The deadlock faced by Vance is largely similar to what happened in late February, when earlier talks in Geneva also failed. That breakdown pushed President Trump to launch a 38-day military campaign targeting Iran’s missile systems, bases and defence industry. Those earlier negotiations were led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who were also present in Islamabad during the latest round of discussions.

The US had hoped that its large-scale military campaign, which targeted more than 13,000 sites, would force Iran to shift its stance. However, Iran has made clear that the attacks have only strengthened its resolve.

Iranian officials said their losses have made them more determined to defend their rights and interests. This suggests that military pressure has not achieved the intended diplomatic outcome.

Fear of long negotiations

There is concern within the US administration about getting drawn into a prolonged negotiation process. Trump believes the US holds the upper hand and expects Iran to give in. However, past experience suggests otherwise.

The last major agreement between the two sides, reached under Barack Obama, took two years and involved multiple compromises, including limits rather than a complete end to Iran’s nuclear activity.

Trump had also warned of more attacks if negotations fail.

Key disputes remain

The main disagreements remain unchanged. Iran has previously offered to suspend its nuclear activities temporarily but refuses to give up its stockpile or its ability to enrich uranium. Tehran argues this is its right under international agreements, while the US sees it as a potential pathway to developing nuclear weapons.

Pressure of war and economy

Trump’s strongest leverage remains the threat of restarting military operations. A fragile ceasefire is set to end on April 21. However, resuming war carries political risks.

The conflict has already disrupted around 20 per cent of global oil supply, pushing up fuel prices and affecting supplies such as fertiliser and helium. Markets had reacted positively to hopes of a deal, and renewed conflict could reverse that trend and increase inflation.

What can Trump do?

President Donald Trump’s main leverage now lies in his ability to threaten a return to major military action. The current two-week ceasefire is fragile and is set to end on April 21. While the threat of renewed fighting may be used in the coming days, it is not an easy political option for Trump, and Iran is aware of this.

The ceasefire was announced partly to ease the pressure caused by the disruption of nearly 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply. This had pushed up fuel prices and created shortages of key supplies such as fertiliser and helium used in semiconductor production. Markets had responded positively to the possibility of a deal, even an incomplete one. If the war resumes, markets are likely to fall, shortages could worsen, and inflation, already at 3.3 per cent, may rise further.

Strait of Hormuz at the centre

The future of the Strait of Hormuz is now a central issue in negotiations. The closure of the strait became an issue only after the war began, when Iran used it as a tool of economic pressure. Now, control over the waterway is tied to Tehran’s broader demands, including compensation for war damage and removal of long-standing sanctions. The United States has rejected paying compensation and said sanctions relief would only come gradually if Iran meets its commitments.

For now, all sides deem they’ve arrive out stronger from the conflict. The US capabilities to its protection power marketing and marketing and marketing campaign, while Iran highlights its potential to withstand it. With neither aspect ready to compromise, the scamper forward remains unsure.

Extra talks possible

Experts yell the US is moving to stable a deal, partly as a result of home political pressures. An agreement could maybe also provide Washington a potential to step support from the conflict. The presence of a senior US delegation in Pakistan underlines how severely the negotiations were being pursued.

American Foreign Michael Kugelman said the effort reflects strong US commitment. He noted that despite the lack of a deal, the process is far from over and further talks are likely, though the venue remains uncertain.

Kugelman described the “Islamabad Dialogue” as a conclude barely than a failure. He pointed to rising rigidity one day of the US, collectively with public fatigue over international conflicts and the rigidity of the 2026 economic disaster, as key components utilizing the frenzy for an agreement.

He suggested that the following steps could maybe also consist of continued low-stage technical discussions, future high-stage meetings in neutral areas similar to Europe or cities cherish Muscat or Doha, and a bit of stronger US rigidity to push Iran towards concessions.

“The US, for home political causes, wants a deal that enables it to exit the war. That this kind of senior neighborhood flew the total formulation to Pak reveals the US dedication. Despite Vance’s feedback, this possible isn’t over. Extra talks could maybe also arrive-but unclear within the event that they’ll be in Pak or in other areas,” reads Kugelman post on X.

News world Vance Leaves, Questions Remain: What Now For Iran-US War Negotiations

Read More

Learn Extra