Talks in Islamabad, involving US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, with Pakistani mediation led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, ended without agreement after marathon negotiations focused on Iran’s nuclear programme and regional security.
According to accounts of the talks, the US under President Donald Trump combined diplomacy with pressure. While officials described extended discussions in Islamabad, the failure to reach a breakthrough was followed by a tougher American stance, including consideration of increased economic pressure linked to the Strait of Hormuz.
The White House strategy is framed as an effort to secure a comprehensive deal: sanctions relief and economic incentives in exchange for full restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes and regional activity. Critics warn, however, that escalating economic pressure could widen rather than resolve the conflict.
Three main scenarios are now being discussed around the aftermath of the Islamabad impasse, The Washington Post columnist David Ignatius writes:
First, regime destabilisation. Under sustained economic and strategic pressure, Iran’s governing system could weaken to the point of internal collapse or leadership replacement. US officials argue this is more likely after military pressure has already degraded state capacity, though this outcome remains highly uncertain.
Second, negotiated transition. Figures such as Ghalibaf could attempt to position themselves as pragmatic intermediaries, accepting a “golden bridge” towards sanctions relief in exchange for strategic concessions. This would amount to an internal shift within Iran rather than full regime collapse, but hinges on fragmented power centres agreeing to compromise.
Third, escalation. Hardline elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could respond to pressure by attempting to break any blockade or intensifying asymmetric attacks. Such a
The strategy is widely described as a gamble: intensify economic pressure while keeping the door open to a sweeping agreement. As former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger argued in his writings on post-war settlements, major geopolitical shifts often occur only after periods of intense conflict and realignment — though history offers no guarantee of success.
