US-Iran talks in Islamabad fail
After the collapse of peace talks with Iran in the Pakistani capital on the weekend, US President Donald Trump has announced that the US navy will close the Strait of Hormuz and block passage for all ships seeking to enter or leave Iranian ports from Monday afternoon. He also said that further US military strikes in Iran were under consideration.
Washington still betting on force and threats
Trump's approach is highly risky, Corriera della Sera explains:
“It's hard to see how this decision could revive talks that have not yet officially been broken off, and at the same time maintain the already fragile two-week ceasefire. ... In theory there is still time until 21 April to revive the talks. Trump thinks he can bring the Iranians back to the negotiating table with force and threats. The US president is claiming the right to stop all oil tankers that are willing to pay the levy imposed by Tehran. ... On the other hand, the choice for freight ships in the Strait today is clear: pay protection money or risk hitting the mines laid by the Pasdaran.”
Irreconcilable viewpoints
Middle East expert Igor Semyvolos explains on Facebook why the talks in Islamabad failed:
“Washington entered the negotiations on the assumption that a few weeks of military pressure would suffice to weaken the Iranian position to the point where it could push through major concessions. Tehran, on the other hand, entered the negotiations with the opposite in mind: it had withstood attacks, held onto its nuclear programme, maintained control over the Strait of Hormuz and proven its ability to respond simultaneously in multiple locations. ... It was this huge discrepancy between US expectations and Iran's self-perception that caused the talks to fail.”
Escalation instead of rapprochement
The Guardian is pessimistic:
“The talks in Islamabad didn't fail accidentally; the US and Iran were talking past each other. ... The ceasefire runs out in little over a week. The talks are not over, but there's a stalemate. However, the logic of escalation is taking hold. Iran is unlikely to back down – opting instead to test US resolve at sea. A full-scale ground offensive may be constrained for now by the Gulf's summer heat, but the conflict risks shifting into more dangerous forms – naval confrontation, airstrikes and proxy warfare – with no way out. There will be no winners in such a scenario, only losers.”
Renewed hostilities dangerous for Trump
Sociologist Igor Eidman does not believe the war will continue:
“The negotiations have failed. Vance and his team have been given the boot in Islamabad. Nevertheless, the active phase of the war is most probably over. A resumption or even an escalation of hostilities would be extremely dangerous for Trump. It would very likely trigger a new wave of inflation and rising petrol prices – and that would guarantee defeat for the Republicans in the midterm elections in November. ... The approval ratings of Donald Trump and JD Vance have plummeted and are now at an all-time low. So who has won this war?”
Iranians face even deeper poverty
For the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung it's already clear who the real losers are in this war:
“The Iranian people. They did not feature at all in the negotiations in Islamabad, neither for the US nor for the delegation from Tehran. ... The bombing campaign, which has now lasted almost six weeks, has destroyed steelworks and petrochemical plants that previously provided jobs for tens of thousands of Iranians. The weeks-long internet shutdown has ruined countless companies. The reconstruction of schools, railways and bridges could take years. Even before the war, despair over the economic situation was so great that thousands took to the streets in protest. Now even more of the population faces unemployment and impoverishment.”