HIBAPRESS – Follow-up
The direct round of negotiations between the United States and Iran in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, ended without an agreement, after more than 20 hours of intense discussions, opening the door to a hazy stage of escalation or fragile de-escalation, amid what Western reports described as "strategic stagnation".
The coverage of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Telegraph agreed that the failure of this round was not surprising, but rather the result of a deep gap in the positions of the two parties, especially regarding the Iranian nuclear program and the future of security arrangements in the region.
The negotiations were led by the American side by Vice President J.D. Vance, who confirmed after the end of the talks that his country was unable to achieve any breakthrough, saying: "We were not able to reach a situation in which Iran is ready to accept our conditions… we were very flexible, but we did not achieve any progress."
The main points of contention are Washington's insistence, with the support of President Donald Trump, on the complete end of the Iranian nuclear program, in exchange for Tehran's adherence to its right to uranium enrichment and its refusal to abandon its strategic capabilities.
The disagreements also included other files, such as control of the Strait of Hormuz, lifting economic sanctions imposed on Iran, releasing frozen Iranian assets, and compensation related to the war, not to mention the request for a ceasefire in Lebanon.
In this context, the newspaper mentioned that the United States presented a "take it or leave it" offer, while Iran chose to reject it, in a position that reflects mutual rigidity, saying that the failure of the talks poses an urgent question: What next?
The newspaper believes that the Trump administration is now facing "unpalatable" options, ranging from entering into long and complex negotiations and returning to war, or trying to manage the crisis without a radical solution.
The newspaper warns that the resumption of fighting may lead to the exacerbation of the global energy crisis, especially with the conflict's connection to the Strait of Hormuz, which represents a vital artery for oil supplies.
In contrast, the Washington Post indicated that this round represented the highest level of direct communication between the two countries in decades, but it ended without any tangible progress, with the door remaining theoretically open for the resumption of talks.
The British newspaper, I Newspaper, pointed out that the ceasefire is still fragile, in light of the continued field tensions, which may undermine any chance of success for the diplomatic path.
It seems, according to the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, that Israel is satisfied with what it considered firmness in the American position, and is even preparing to resume fighting.
The newspaper mentioned that there is an understanding between the Israeli government and Washington on the red lines in the negotiations with Iran, and therefore it was not surprised by Washington's position, but rather expressed its satisfaction with the Americans' adoption of an approach that sees that "avoiding an agreement is better than reaching a bad agreement."
But the newspaper pointed out that some of Trump's and his deputy Vance's advisors do not seem very enthusiastic about the possibility of a return to fighting, so they may advise him to give the negotiations another chance, hoping that the Pakistanis will convince the Iranians to be more flexible.
However, the newspaper said that the US military is preparing for all possibilities, as Israel is preparing for the possibility of a rapid return to fighting.
It pointed out that among what is being proposed is the imposition of a siege on Iran and a return to bombing with Israel to target energy and national infrastructure in order to make Iran unable to rebuild economically and accelerate the path of the regime's collapse and the people's exit to the streets and ground operations in the Strait of Hormuz and the occupation of Kharg Island and military action to remove enriched uranium.
3 Scenarios
In light of this complex scene, the Telegraph newspaper identified 3 main scenarios for what might happen later:
First: Resumption of negotiation under pressure
The withdrawal of the American delegation may be a tactical move to push Iran to make subsequent concessions, but the newspaper warns that this path may lead to prolonging the crisis and repeating the current state of stagnation.
Second: Return to military escalation
This scenario includes the resumption of the war on a large scale or the implementation of limited operations, especially in the Strait of Hormuz, and the risks lie in the fact that this may cause disruption to global energy markets and rising inflation rates, not to mention the increase in internal political pressure on the American administration.
Third: Ending the war without an agreement
The American President may choose to end military operations without reaching a formal agreement, according to the newspaper, but this option may be interpreted as an American retreat that will leave the basic issues unresolved, at the forefront of which is the nuclear file.
Through these reports, it is clear that the results of this round resulted in a complex reality. The United States does not want a long and costly war, and Iran refuses to make substantive concessions. Between this and that, the scene remains open to 3 possibilities: long negotiation, or dangerous escalation, or a fragile settlement, at a time when the region and the world remain hostage to the developments of this file, according to the Telegraph.
(Al Jazeera)
