US-Iran talks: Stalling but not Failing

By Abrar Ahmad

We cannot negotiate with those who say what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable.

John F. Kennedy, July 25, 1961, at the height of the Berlin crisis of 1961.

This approach points toward a possible new round of U.S.–Iran talks. Diplomacy offers a pathway distinct from war, one that can preserve stability and expand space for mutually beneficial outcomes. Following the apparent setback in the Islamabad talks, Trump’s statement signals openness to another round, potentially again in Islamabad.

At the strategic level, the United States views Iran not only as a regional rival but as part of a broader alignment that could challenge its global influence. In The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that a coalition among China, Russia, and Iran would pose a serious challenge to U.S. primacy. This concern continues to inform Washington’s cautious and often adversarial stance toward Tehran.

Historically, U.S.–Iran relations have remained strained since the Iranian Revolution replaced a pro-Western monarchy with an Islamic regime. While tensions have ebbed and flowed, they have never fully dissipated. Major flashpoints include the 1988 downing of an Iranian passenger aircraft by the United States, the “Axis of Evil” speech by George W. Bush in 2002, the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, and more recent escalations involving nuclear sites and senior Iranian officials. Together, these events reflect a long-standing pattern of confrontation shaped by security anxieties, ideological divergence, and regional competition.

Today’s tensions carry particularly serious global implications. Any escalation between the U.S. and Iran risks disrupting international trade, especially energy flows, placing immense strain on Asia and the Middle East. Oil markets remain highly sensitive to instability in the Persian Gulf, and prolonged conflict could trigger far-reaching economic shocks.

This enduring rivalry has also constrained basic economic freedoms across the region. Long-standing sanctions on Iran have limited not only its own economic activity but also the ability of neighboring countries to engage in open trade, particularly in energy markets. Restrictions on purchasing Iranian oil have affected multiple economies, reducing opportunities for growth and cooperation. Iran’s push for sanctions relief during the Islamabad talks reflects a broader demand for economic breathing space, one that could also benefit other vulnerable economies in the region.

Although negotiations have not fully collapsed, their failure would carry significant consequences not just for the United States and Iran, but for the global system as a whole. Economic disruption, energy insecurity, and regional instability would fall hardest on weaker economies, potentially setting back development by years. Recent statements from the U.S. president suggest a degree of flexibility, leaving room for a negotiated outcome.

In an interconnected world, conflict rarely remains contained. Its effects ripple across borders, constraining trade, growth, and individual prosperity. For this reason, both Washington and Tehran must prioritize diplomacy over coercion. Moving away from zero-sum power politics toward pragmatic engagement is not only a strategic necessity, but it is vital for preserving economic freedom and long-term global stability.