TEHRAN- US President Donald Trump has once again intensified threats against Iran following negotiations between Tehran and Washington in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, where high-level talks ended on Sunday without a deal.

The negotiations, mediated by Pakistan, brought together senior Iranian and American officials in the wake of a fragile two-week ceasefire following a 40-day US–Israeli war against Iran that began on February 28. The talks began on Saturday and continued into early Sunday but ended in deadlock, with both sides blaming each other for the failure.

High-level talks

Vice President J.D. Vance led a delegation, joined by US special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The Iranian delegation was headed by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and included Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and other senior officials. Despite the seniority of both teams, no breakthrough was achieved.

Iran’s nuclear program 

At the core of the disagreement remained Iran’s nuclear program. Vance demanded an “affirmative commitment” that Iran would not pursue nuclear weapons among other excuses. 
Iran has repeatedly stressed that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful and compliant with international law. Tehran has also reiterated that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, a position also supported by international intelligence assessments which have found no evidence of a weapons program. Iranian officials maintain that uranium enrichment on the country’s soil is a sovereign right and cannot be subject to external imposition.

A wall of mistrust 

Iran’s parliament speaker, the head of the Iranian team, said although Iran offered “constructive initiatives”, the US was “unable to gain the trust of the Iranian delegation in this round of negotiations”. He said it was now up to Washington “to decide whether it can gain our trust or not”.
Qalibaf said Iran has no trust in the opposite side due to the experience of the two US-Israeli-imposed wars; the ones they launched on February 28 and in June last year.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei noted that while limited convergence was achieved on secondary issues, major differences remained on two to three core matters. Iranian media also reported that excessive US demands were the main obstacle to any agreement.

US-Israel warmongering 

The diplomatic breakdown followed the 40-day war that began with coordinated US–Israeli strikes on Iran, including the assassination of Iran’s Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and several senior military officials in Tehran on February 28. 

Throughout the war, Iranian territory came under extensive attack targeting energy infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and residential areas, resulting in heavy casualties and widespread destruction.

Iranian deterrence

Despite the scale of the military campaign, Iran’s defense structure was not broken. Instead, Iranian forces mounted a forceful response, striking US bases across the Persian Gulf region and Israeli targets in cities such as Haifa and Tel Aviv. These retaliatory strikes underscored Iran’s continued operational reach and deterrence capability.

A key strategic development was Iran’s effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, where it restricted the movement of vessels linked to the US, Israel, and their partners. The move triggered global energy concerns and highlighted Iran’s leverage over one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints.

Strategic miscalculation

The outcome of the 40-day conflict is increasingly viewed as a major strategic miscalculation by Washington and Tel Aviv. Despite declared objectives of dismantling Iran’s military capabilities and forcing unconditional surrender, those goals were not achieved. Iran maintained its defensive structure, sustained retaliatory capacity, and preserved strategic deterrence throughout the war.

Diplomatic breakdown

The failure on the battlefield was mirrored in Islamabad. US maximalist demands clashed with Iran’s insistence on sovereign rights and mutual respect. Even Pakistan’s mediation could not bridge the gap, and both sides left the talks without progress while exchanging blame.

Return to pressure

Following the collapse of negotiations, Trump sharply escalated his rhetoric once again, warning of new measures against Iran and signaling a potential maritime escalation in the Strait of Hormuz.

In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump claimed that the United States Navy would begin intercepting vessels in and around the strategic waterway, including ships he described as being linked to Iran or “paying a toll” to Tehran. He said the US would move to “block any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz,” and added that American forces would act to neutralize maritime threats, including the removal of mines allegedly laid in the area.

He further warned that any Iranian action against US forces or commercial shipping would be met with overwhelming force, stating that those who target “peaceful vessels will be blown to hell.” Trump also declared that Washington remained “locked and loaded,” suggesting that the United States was prepared for further military escalation “at the appropriate moment.”

At the same time, he framed the proposed measures as part of an effort to prevent what he described as Iranian “extortion” through control of the strategic waterway, insisting that Iran “will not be allowed to profit” from the situation and reiterating claims that Tehran’s actions were tied to broader nuclear ambitions.

In effect, the rhetoric combined threats of direct military engagement with an attempt to internationalize enforcement of a potential blockade, signaling a continuation of coercive pressure despite the failure of both military and diplomatic tracks to produce the stated objectives.

Iran has said that all vessels not affiliated with the United States, Israel, and countries involved in the recent aggression against Iran may pass through the Strait of Hormuz, subject to coordination with Iranian authorities.

It appears that Washington is now attempting to internationalize the consequences of its failed strategy by drawing other countries into maritime enforcement and pressure measures, in an effort to share the costs of a confrontation that has already exposed the limits of US military and diplomatic leverage.