What now after US leaves peace talks with Iran without a deal?

VICE-President JD Vance’s failure to win the concessions the US sought from Iran in a single, marathon negotiating session over its nuclear programme was no surprise.

But what now?

The failure leaves the Trump administration facing several unpalatable options: A lengthy negotiation with Teheran over the future of its nuclear programme, or a resumption of a war that has already created the largest energy disruption in modern times, and the prospect of a long struggle over who controls the Strait of Hormuz.

White House officials said they would defer to President Donald Trump, who travelled to Florida for the weekend to attend a UFC match, to announce the administration’s next move. But each of those paths carries significant strategic and political downsides.

Vance said little about what took place during more than 21 hours of negotiations that started, suggesting he had handed the Iranians a take-it-or-leave-it proposal to forever terminate their nuclear programme, and they left it.

“We’ve made very clear what our red lines are,” Vance told reporters on Sunday (Apr 12), “what things we’re willing to accommodate them on.” He added, “They have chosen not to accept our terms.”

In that respect, this negotiation appears to have differed little from the one that ended in deadlock in Geneva in late February. That led to Trump ordering what became 38 days of missile and bombing attacks across Iran, aimed at its missile stockpiles, its military bases and the industrial base inside Iran that produces new weaponry.

But Trump’s bet, one he described several times over the past month, was that Iran would change its mind once faced with a huge demonstration of American military prowess, with more than 13,000 targets hit, according to the Pentagon.

The Iranians, for their part, were determined to show that no amount of American ordnance would force them to give way.

SEE ALSO

US-Iran peace talks end without agreement, delegations leave Pakistan

What are the main talking points at the US-Iran negotiations in Pakistan?

US intelligence indicates China preparing weapons shipment to Iran

“The heavy loss of our great elders, dear ones, and fellow countrymen has made our response to pursue the Iranian nation’s interests and rights firmer than every before,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a statement as Vance headed to a military airfield to leave for home, empty-handed for now.

Perhaps that will change. But the administration’s fear of being sucked into a complex, lengthy conversation with Iran is palpable. Trump believes that he emerged the victor of the conflict, and therefore, as special envoy Steve Witkoff puts it, Iran should simply “capitulate.”

That is not how it happened in the past. The last major agreement between Teheran and Washington, reached during the Obama administration, took two years to negotiate.

And it was full of compromises, including allowing Iran to retain a small amount of its nuclear stockpile, and gradually lifting the restrictions on its nuclear activities until 2030, when Iran would be permitted to conduct any nuclear activity permissible under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

But the deadlock Vance ran into was essentially the same as the ones that derailed negotiations in late February, and prompted Trump to order the attack. (That negotiation was run by Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, who were present in Islamabad during the more than 20 hours of negotiations.)

Back then, the Iranians offered to “suspend” their nuclear operations for a few years, but not to give up their stockpiles of near-bomb-grade uranium or permanently surrender the capability to enrich uranium on their own soil.

To the Iranians, that is their right as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which commits them to never making a nuclear weapon.

To the Americans, it is what Witkoff called “a tell” that Iran always wants a ready option to build a nuclear weapon, even if it never exercises that option.

Thirty-eight days of war appear to have hardened that view, not loosened it.

Will US resume fighting?

Trump’s chief leverage now comes in his ability to threaten to resume major combat operations. After all, the fragile two-week ceasefire ends Apr 21.

But while the threat of resuming combat operations may be invoked in coming days, it is not a particularly viable political choice for Trump – and the Iranians know it.

Trump declared the ceasefire last week in large part to stem the pain from the loss of 20 per cent of the world’s oil supplies, which was sending the price of gasoline soaring, creating shortages of fertiliser and, among other critical supplies, helium for the production of semiconductors.

Markets rose on the prospect of an agreement, even an incomplete or unsatisfactory one. Should the war resume, the markets would most likely decline, the shortages would worsen and inflation – already up to 3.3 per cent – would almost inevitably rise.

The Hormuz conundrum

And that leaves the most urgent issue: the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranians, in their own description of the meeting, put it first among their list of issues discussed.

“In the past 24 hours, discussions were held on various dimensions of the main topics, including the Strait of Hormuz, the nuclear issue, war reparations, lifting of sanctions and the complete end to the war against Iran,” the Iranian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

It was a notable list, since the closing of the strait was not an issue until after the war started and the Iranians decided to make use of their most potent weapon of economic chaos.

Now control of the waterway is wrapped in Iran’s other demands, including that the US pay for damage done to Iran in the course of the bombing and missile strikes, and that it lift more than two decades of sanctions against the country. The US has rejected the first idea, and said the second could happen only slowly, as the Iranians put in place their part of a deal.

What Vance’s trip made clear is that both sides think they emerged as the victor of the first round: the US by dropping so much ordnance on Iran, the Iranians by surviving. Neither seems in the mood for compromise. NYTIMES