“When arrogance replaces diplomacy, even powerful nations negotiate only their own decline.”
THE outcome of the first round of talks between Iran and the USA have broken down. It comes as no entire surprise. The war involving Iran and the combine of Israel and USA were not between two equal sides. Iran came out the winner at the conclusion of the 38-day war.
It is worth noting that historical analysis and results illustrate how the United States has experienced several conflicts where it failed to achieve its strategic objectives against opponents that were often considered smaller, less technologically advanced, or “inferior” in terms of conventional military power.
While the US military won several major conventional battles, it failed to defeat the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and Viet Cong insurgency. The war was lost strategically, leading to the unification of Vietnam under communist rule. The United States and its allies failed to permanently defeat the Taliban insurgency, leading to a 20-year conflict. The Taliban regained control of Afghanistan in 2021 following the withdrawal of US troops, marking a significant defeat for US foreign policy. As cynics note: The US went into Afghanistan to defeat and replace the Taliban, they ended up twenty years later leaving the Taliban in power.
In the early 1800s, the US failed to achieve its objectives of conquering Canada and faced the humiliation of having the White House burned.
While a battle rather than a full war, The Battle of the Wabash (1791) often cited as the greatest defeat in the history of the US Army. A force of about 1,000 regular troops and militia was defeated by a Native American Western Confederacy in Ohio, with a casualty rate exceeding 97%.
In many of these cases, the US military faced unconventional warfare (guerrilla tactics) or lacked clear, achievable political objectives rather than losing in a traditional conventional battlefield sense.
Iran surprised the USA with its resilience and practice of civilisation values and patience. Iran adopted a defensive posture in stark contrast to Israel and USA who jumped the gun and ended up consuming its war assets in their bid to indulge in a “shock and awe’ strategy. The outcome of the war surprised traditionalists who watched the war through the narrow lens of traditional war tactics.
War assets do not necessarily make for victory in war. Strategy and patience have more substance in the battlefield. The world watched aghast as the USA and Israel tumbled into misery at the hands of the Iran army who had planned this war with meticulous precision choosing defense as their strategy, and attack when it was tactically right to indulge in.
In the talks that failed to extract a single concession in their favour, the USA returned home with empty hands. After all, almost any thinking military strategist would tell you that these talks about “surrender”. An immature, unintelligent delegation comprising J D Vance as leader, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner failed to make even a single step forward that would leave the USA claiming victory and even more friendless than before the war began. Much like the neighbourhood bully, the US went off on a killing spree only to achieve nil and reaching the space that fools march in, and wise men never tread. The USA had been emptied of its cupboard of friendly nations. Most disowned what the USA had fooled itself into thinking- that the USA was the leader of the free world. The United States attempted to enforce excessive demands by utilising a strategy of “maximum pressure,” which combines intense economic sanctions with military escalation, aiming for a “better deal” that goes beyond the restrictions of the original 2015 JCPOA.
It is useful to traceback what went wrong for the USA.
– Washington sought to force Iran to completely stop uranium enrichment, dismantle its advanced centrifuge infrastructure, and close pathways to nuclear production, rather than just capping them.
– The US also demanded that negotiations include limitations on Iran’s ballistic missile program and an end to its regional support for various groups, expanding the scope far beyond the original nuclear deal.
Amid negotiations, the US launched “Operation Midnight Hammer,” targeting nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The US also increased its military presence, deploying bombers, carriers, and setting conditions to control the Strait of Hormuz.
Following the 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA, the US reinstated severe economic sanctions, targeting Iran’s oil exports and financial sectors to force a total economic collapse and break the Iranian government’s negotiating stance. The US had enforced sanctions on entities in China and Iran supporting the Iranian ballistic missile program, attempting to restrict Iran’s international economic interactions.
In the short negotiations, Iran principally rejected all US demands as “excessive” and “unreasonable,” labelling the US position as “unrealistic,” which has led to numerous impasses in the negotiations.
The 21-hour marathon talks between the United States and Iran in Islamabad derailed due to deep, the irreconcilable differences over nuclear restrictions, regional security, and the lifting of sanctions left the talks at static. Both sides engaged in the longest direct negotiation session in decades; they ultimately accused each other of non-cooperation. The USA did not think it prudent to concede even a single condition. They were too arrogant to recognise that they were not there to sign a cease-fire deal; rather they were there to sign a surrender deal after a war which they had , for all intents and purposes, the USA and Israel had lost
The core sticking point was Iran’s nuclear program, with the US seeking a “fundamental commitment” from Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. Iran refused to accept terms it considered “excessive” and stuck to its guns a Nuclear Program Deadlock.
Iran described the US demands as “unreasonable” and “maximalist,” arguing they went beyond what the US could achieve on the battlefield. Conversely, US officials, including Vice President JD Vance, stated that Iran refused to accept the “final and best offer” presented by Washington. One asks: How could the USA adopt not view that it was making excessive” Demands.
Why would Iran hand over its right to nuclear enrichment in a dialogue that involved the world’s largest inventory of nuclear weapons of roughly of roughly 1,770 deployed warheads across land, sea, and air, alongside retired warheads awaiting dismantlement. The arsenal is managed for modernisation, with significant storage in New Mexico.
The US sought to limit Iran’s regional influence and support for allied groups (which is crudely refers to as ‘proxy groups’, while Iran pushed for a full end to the war against it in the region, including in Lebanon.
There were deep disagreements over the security of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil shipping route. Iran’s demand for control over transit arrangements in the Strait and for reparations for the war was not accepted.
There were deep mutual trust and suspicion in the course of the negotiations took place in an environment of high suspicion. The two-week ceasefire that was broken by renewed hostilities. Iran suspected that the talks were a “subterfuge” to allow the US to gather intelligence and military resources. The talks were heavily impacted by ongoing military activities, including US military movements in the region during the negotiations.
The talks, facilitated by Pakistan, intended to convert a, fragile two-week ceasefire into a long-term peace deal ended in a stalemate, leaving the regional conflict in limbo. This is the stage of dead-lock.
Talks between the USA and Iran have a slim, fragile chance of revival, centered on a tense, tentative April 2026 ceasefire aimed at ending a regional war rather than a long-term diplomatic resolution. A lasting deal requires overcoming massive trust deficits, reversing nuclear advancements, and stopping proxy attacks, potentially requiring a new focus on regional security rather than just a nuclear pact.
These talks could end up in a renewed war. But the USA may not dare this mis-step. So, what new ‘End-goals’ are needed? A sustainable agreement, demand a shift in objectives:
- Replacing the focus on the nuclear deal, a new goal includes a formal framework that addresses Iran’s support for regional allies and bi-lateral talks that allow for a Union of Gulf States rather than US hegemony and Israel political manipulation. In other words, SGCC countries together with Iran should formulate a regional security framework.
- Iron-clad coupled with concrete assurances that the US and Israel will not attack them in the future must be guaranteed.
- The Strait of Hormuz Stability gives Iran leverage without which they risk handing its control to the USA and its allies. Securing safe freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is a primary goal, with Iran maintaining influence and the US staying out of the region and playing mischief. It has, thus far, only proven its intent to control the region and weaken Iran’s influence. This condition should remain a no-no, and remain in favour of Iran.
- Future talks must revolve lifting economic sanctions and the return of looted Iranian wealth.
- Certifiable limitations on Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile and dismantling of infrastructure for producing it must continue.
Nuclear Free Nuclear Zone in the Middle East
A Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East is a long-standing initiative, pushed since 1974 by Iran and Egypt, to eliminate nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the region. First officially proposed to the UN in 1974 by Iran and Egypt, aiming for a zone similar to others worldwide. The zone aims to prohibit the development, production, testing, or acquisition of nuclear weapons, along with chemical and biological weapons (WMDFZ).
A key resolution at the 1995 NPT Review Conference stated that the zone should be established, which remains crucial for the treaty’s credibility. The UN and NPT Review Conferences have long called for this, primarily to curb regional arms races and address concerns over Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal. The process has been hindered by low political trust, security issues, and disagreements over Israeli involvement, as Israel is the only regional state not party to the NPT.
All regional states must be obliged to join the NPT and place all nuclear facilities under IAEA. IAEA Safeguards must be cemented by the development of a regional security mechanism and verification centre to oversee compliance.
Finally, the next round of talks must have high on its agenda a ban on stationing nuclear weapons or weapons-usable technology in the region.
The new ideas proposed now could create symmetry and favourable peace mechanisms among nations in the region. Israel cannot be the super power with asymmetric political standing. It must integrate fully into the idea of the Middle East and the GCC countries. And end to occupation and apartheid will have to achieved – difficult, one might argue, but non-negotiable too.
__________
Ranjan Solomon is a writer, researcher and activist based in Goa. He has worked in social movements since he was 19 years of age. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily share or subscribe to them. He can be contacted at ranjan.solomon@gmail.com
