April 23, 2026

SHARE |

An End to the U.S.-Iran War Proves Elusive 

(AP Photo/Anjum Naveed)

A second round of U.S.-Iran negotiations in Islamabad, that U.S. President Donald Trump predicted would produce a ground-breaking accord and end the nearly two-month war, did not take place earlier this week. The collapse of the meeting, on the eve of the expiration of a two-week ceasefire, rendered the chances of renewed U.S.-Iran warfare as likely as an eventual agreement. The talks were to begin early Wednesday (local time), but Iranian officials confirmed Tuesday they would not attend unless Trump dropped the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, adding that they would not negotiate while “under threat.” The U.S negotiating team, again led by Vice President JD Vance, did not depart Washington, attributing the cancellation of the trip to Iran’s refusal to respond to specific U.S. demands for limitations on its nuclear program. The first round of talks was held in Islamabad on April 11-12.

In a social media post, President Trump offered an alternate explanation for Iran’s absence, stating that sharp divisions within the Iranian regime prevented Iran’s negotiators from offering a coherent response to U.S. proposals for a draft framework accord. Citing those internal disagreements, as well as diplomatic pressure from Pakistani mediators, Trump extended the ceasefire, easing pressure on global energy markets. He posted Tuesday night: “Based on the fact that the Government of Iran is seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so and, upon the request of Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, of Pakistan, we have been asked to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal.” His initial ceasefire extension was indefinite, but on Wednesday, Axios quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying "Trump is willing to give another three to five days of ceasefire” to allow the Iranians to assemble their response. They added that the ceasefire “is not going to be open-ended." Trump reportedly later clarified that the new ceasefire expiration deadline is on Sunday. The Axios report added detail to U.S. assertions of divisions within the regime, quoting the officials as saying: “We saw that there is an absolute fracture inside Iran between the negotiators and the military — with neither side having access to the supreme leader [Mojtaba Khamenei], who is not responsive.”

The cancellation, or at least delay, of the next talks in Islamabad reflects the calculations of U.S. and Iranian leaders as they maneuver for advantage. Hardline commanders of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reportedly insisted Iranian negotiators, led by Majles (parliament) Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, not negotiate with the U.S. team unless Iran could bargain from a clear position of strength. They argue that a prolonged elevation of global energy prices and mounting global shortages of some goods will increasingly pressure Trump to accede to Iran’s positions, end the war, and eventually withdraw U.S. forces from the region. Their assessment derives some support from estimates by the Economist and other sources that global energy supplies will begin to more visibly tighten now that the last tankers that crossed the Strait of Hormuz reached their destinations (as of Monday), and that “Asia is running dry” of energy supply. Iranian hardliners refute assertions by pragmatic officials that a rejection of U.S. demands would provoke Trump to restart the war, attack Iranian civilian infrastructure, or order a ground incursion into Iranian territory.

Trump and his team calculate the opposite — that the U.S. blockade of Iran’s seaborne trade, which carries all of its oil exports, will quickly cripple Iran’s economy and force Iran to accept U.S. demands at the bargaining table. Emblematic of the Trump team’s assumptions, Trump stated on Wednesday that Iran was “starving for cash” and losing an estimated $500 million per day in revenue. Trump has not only kept the blockade in place but expanded its reach in an effort to increase pressure on Tehran. On Monday, U.S. forces boarded the Botswana-flagged M/T Tifani, a sanctioned shadow-fleet crude oil tanker, while it was sailing from Sri Lanka to Indonesia, thousands of miles away from the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranian coast. U.S. officials are reportedly planning to seize some of the Iranian tankers even further afield, which reportedly hold 160 million barrels of oil waiting to be delivered. For its part, Iran has threatened to respond to the blockade with force. On Wednesday, the IRGC Navy, using some of its hundreds of fast-attack craft, sought to add pressure on global energy markets — and on Trump — by firing on three ships near the Strait of Hormuz and seizing two of them.

The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz threaten the ceasefire and an eventual accord, but global leaders and regional mediators, particularly Pakistan, argue that many of the other outstanding issues are close to resolution. Trump has asserted daily that Iran had accepted U.S. demands and that a framework agreement would be forged when the talks convene. Experts assume that a war-ending accord that settles the major outstanding issues will include a mutual U.S. and Iran decision to relinquish their control over Strait traffic. Some close observers of the negotiations assert that a draft framework agreement includes clauses providing the Strait to reopen to all commercial traffic, without an Iranian demand to collect fees for ships that use the waterway. The draft also reportedly provides for a formal end to the war, a guarantee against further hostilities, and the pullback of the additional U.S. forces sent to the region to conduct the war. Iran had initially demanded that all U.S. forces leave the region entirely, a position categorically rejected by Washington. Yet, U.S. assessments of the war might produce a decision, taken in partnership with U.S. allies among the Arab Gulf states, for U.S. forces to return to an “over the horizon” posture rather than preposition personnel and defense assets in forward bases in the Gulf states. The bases are within rapid reach of Iranian short-range missiles.

Core U.S. demands in the potential accord center on verifiably blocking all Iranian pathways to developing a nuclear weapon, were there a regime decision to do so. Trump’s team has demanded Iran end its enrichment of uranium and dismantle its enrichment facilities. Some sources close to the negotiations report that the two sides are closing in on a compromise under which Iran would suspend enrichment for 15-years, slightly shorter than the U.S. demand for at least a 20-year freeze. Under an alternate version of the compromise, Iran would pause enrichment for ten years, and in the subsequent ten years, enrich to levels well below weapons grade. Iran had previously pushed for a significantly shorter suspension of three to five years.

Another core issue for the Trump team — the fate of Iran’s stockpile of 440 kilograms of 60 percent enriched uranium — is also reportedly close to resolution. The U.S. has insisted that the stockpile, believed buried under the destroyed Isfahan uranium conversion facility, be removed from Iran and taken to the United States. Iran has offered to “down-blend” (dilute) the material to 3.67 percent purity for use in Iran’s power reactor at Bushehr. Iranian officials have rejected its removal from Iran, but some sources suggest the Trump team might accept Iran’s proposal to dilute the material in Iran, provided the work is done under full supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as U.S. and other international observers. Some versions of the proposal assign Russia to accept the material and reprocess it — an offer that might conceivably receive U.S. support. According to a CNN report, the U.S. would lift a U.S. sanctions freeze of $20 billion in Iranian assets held abroad upon Iran’s surrender of the stockpile. Additional sanctions relief would be phased as Iran complies with the other requirements of the accord.

Experts and global officials are unclear whether, or to what degree, a U.S.-Iran framework will include limitations on Iran’s ballistic missile and drone arsenal, and its support for its Axis of Resistance partners. Iran has rejected any requirements that would constrain the number or the ranges of its missiles, considering the arsenal a core strategic deterrent. Some reports indicate that Iran might agree to limit its support for its Axis of Resistance partners for humanitarian and financial aid and agree to end deliveries of weapons and technology to those groups. However, many experts assess that hardliners will interpret any constraints on Iranian relations with the Axis of Resistance as a direct assault on the ideological foundation of the Islamic Republic.