The United States and Iran recently held negotiations in Islamabad lasting up to 21 hours; however, no substantive outcome was achieved. US vice president JD Vance emphasized that the US position is straightforward: Iran must provide a clear commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, and must also refrain from importing or possessing equipment that could enable it to rapidly produce such weapons. Iran, however, has been unwilling to make these assurances.
While the Trump administration may believe that the loss of several senior Iranian figures could render the current Iranian regime more amenable to dialogue, such an assumption may underestimate the deeper structural and ideological dynamics at play.
For countries like Iran, the human cost of war does not necessarily translate into deterrence. Since the establishment of its theocratic system in 1979 under the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih, or Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist, Iran’s governance has been fundamentally shaped by religious authority. As a result, even in the face of significant military setbacks inflicted by the US and Israel, it is highly unlikely that Iran would capitulate or make meaningful concessions.
In this context, Vance’s characterization of the current US-Iran arrangement as a “fragile truce” appears well-founded. Both sides have claimed substantial victories in the conflict, underscoring a mutual lack of willingness to compromise. There remains a significant risk that the US could resume large-scale military operations against Iran within the next 10 days.
The recent sharp rebound in global equity markets may therefore be better understood as a temporary relief rally – potentially the final exit window within a broader corrective phase. A durable resolution to the Middle East conflict is unlikely in the near term and may realistically require another three to six months to materialize.
Andrew Wong is a veteran independent commentator
