When US Vice President JD Vance walked out of Islamabad on Sunday without a deal, he had a line ready. “We have not reached an agreement. That is bad news for Iran, much more than it is bad news for the United States of America,” he told reporters. Twenty-one hours of negotiations, and that was Washington’s summary.
Tehran had a different summary entirely.
The collapse of the Islamabad Talks, the highest-level direct engagement between the US and Iran in 47 years, held against the backdrop of a fragile two-week ceasefire, has triggered a sharp battle of narratives between the two sides, each positioning the other as the party that walked away, and each doing so with carefully chosen language.
What Vance said and what he left unsaid
The US Vice President acknowledged progress, up to a point. “We’ve had a number of substance agreements with the Iranians, that is the good news,” he said. But he stopped well short of detailing what those agreements covered, or what broke the talks at the last mile.
Vance confirmed the negotiations ran for approximately 21 hours and included ‘several substantive discussions’. He offered no specifics on sticking points, but separately, reports pointed to Iran’s nuclear programme and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz as the core red lines Washington was pushing on.
What Tehran said and how many voices said it
Iran’s response came from multiple directions simultaneously.
Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi was the sharpest. In a post on X, he wrote: “In intensive talks at the highest level in 47 years, Iran engaged with the US in good faith to end the war. But when just inches away from ‘Islamabad MoU’, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade. Zero lessons earned. Good will begets goodwill. Enmity begets enmity.”
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, who led the Iranian delegation, described the talks as “intensive, serious and challenging” and said Iran’s team had presented “excellent initiatives” to demonstrate goodwill, which “led to progress in the negotiations.”
He dismissed Trump’s threats as having “no effect on the Iranian nation” and warned: “If they fight, we will fight; and if they come forth with logic, we will react with logic. We will not surrender to any threat.”
From New Delhi, Abdul Majid Hakeem Ilahi, the representative of Iran’s Supreme Leader in India, was more direct about Iran’s read of American intent. “Actually, from the beginning, we doubted this negotiation because we are sure that the American administration is not serious about negotiation. They wanted to buy time; they wanted to refresh themselves,” he told ANI.
On who left the table, Ilahi rejected the US version flatly. “No, we never left the table. They left the table because they were asking for too many things. Even if you look at the news, they say they don’t want 90 per cent or 95 per cent, they want everything. That means they want 100 per cent,” he said.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, posting on X, kept the door open but set a condition: “If the American government abandons its totalitarianism and respects the rights of the Iranian nation, ways to reach an agreement will certainly be found.”
The Islamabad Talks: Process or dead end?
Iran’s Ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, pushed back against the idea that the talks were simply a failed event. “The Islamabad Talks is ‘not an event but a process’. The Islamabad Talks laid the foundation for a diplomatic process that, if trust and will are strengthened, can create a sustainable framework for the interests of all parties,” he said.
Qalibaf echoed this, telling reporters on his return to Iran that the US “is indebted to Iranian people and needs to work hard to indemnify them,” adding: “We announced from the very beginning that we do not trust the Americans. Our wall of distrust dates back to 77 years ago. This comes as in less than 12 months, they attacked us two times in the middle of negotiations. Thus, they are the ones who must earn our trust.”
The Tasnim News Agency, citing an informed source, reported that Iran had offered “reasonable proposals” during the negotiations and that “the ball is now in the US court.”
Where things stand
The two-week ceasefire between Iran, the US and Israel, announced on Wednesday following 40 days of fighting, remains technically in place but precarious. On Sunday, Trump announced the US Navy would block maritime traffic entering the Strait of Hormuz and interdict vessels found to have paid transit tolls to Tehran, marking a sharp escalation in the immediate aftermath of the talks’ collapse.
Iran’s response on Hormuz was measured. Ilahi told reporters: “The Strait of Hormuz belongs to all countries. It’s not only for the United States of America. Before this war, the Strait of Hormuz was open. We hope that very soon the Strait of Hormuz will also be solved and go back as before.”
Both sides say they are open to further talks. Neither side is moving first.