Summary

Iran war: Talks collapse is bad news for ordinary IraniansApril 13, 2026 The US-Iran talks in Islamabad were seen as a test of whether the fragile ceasefire could lay the groundwork for a more durable peace. Instead, the negotiations ended without a deal. But even though no agreement was reached, the talks were not entirely in vain. They were the highest-level direct meetings between the two sides since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. And despite the talks' perceived failure, diplomatic channels appear to remain open, at least until the temporary ceasefire's deadline on April 22, with Pakistan urging both sides to uphold the truce. US Vice President JD Vance, who led the American delegation, called the US offer their "last proposal," which Iranian officials called "unreasonable" and "excessive." But while there is still a significant gap to bridge between Washington and Tehran, domestic pressure on the Iranian regime is also playing a major role. A pragmatic opening, but no breakthrough Public reporting on the details of the US proposal remains fragmentary and disputed. But hardline Iranian lawmaker Mahmoud Nabavian, who was part of the delegation in Islamabad, claimed on X that Washington wanted a share in revenues from the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of all 60% enriched uranium, and a 20-year halt to Iranian uranium enrichment. Those claims have not been independently verified, but they do show how quickly hardliners in Tehran moved to frame the US position as maximalist and humiliating. The tone struck by Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, who was also part of the Iranian negotiating team, was noticeably more measured. After the talks, he said that Iran had entered with "goodwill and the necessary will," but that past wars had left Tehran with "no trust in the other side." He added that the US had now understood Iran's principles, and that it was up to Washington to decide whether it could "earn our trust." The contrasting positions demonstrate that within the Iranian camp, there appear to be different priorities: one side trying to keep the door to diplomacy open, another trying to make clear that any agreement would come at too high a political cost. The real pressure is inside Iran The collapse of the talks was bad news for most ordinary Iranians, whose country and infrastructure have been battered by nearly six weeks of heavy bombings and airstrikes. One Tehran resident told DW that the company where he worked had been tied to Mobarakeh Steel and that after the plant was struck and shut down, some workers were told not to return. "Accounting staff is still there," he said, "but in sales, there is nobody left." He said he still hopes an agreement will be reached so that damaged factories can be rebuilt and people can return to work. Another Tehran resident described a deeper sense of economic collapse. "Hundreds of thousands have become unemployed," they told DW, adding that many people now cannot even afford basic goods, exacerbating an economic crisis that fueled huge protests across Iran earlier this year. "A product that cannot be bought is worthless," they said. They also pointed out that the internet shutdown since the outbreak of the war on February 28 had impacted countless jobs and strained family life. "Society is in a deep economic, political and social crisis," they said. That sense of unease in a country still reeling from the massive, nationwide anti-government demonstrations this year is one reason the clerical regime might still try to keep diplomatic channels open and return to the negotiating table. Iran's government might still have coercive power, but the economic and social costs of returning to full confrontation are rising fast Is a deal still possible? Despite the failure in Islamabad, some are hopeful that diplomatic efforts will eventually yield some form of meaningful outcome. Nazila Golestan, a political activist based in Paris, told DW that a longer war is neither in the interests of the increasingly isolated regime in Tehran, nor of the Iranian people, who have seen their cities, factories, energy facilities and other infrastructure bombed to destruction. "Continuing the war is harmful to the people, while continuing negotiations is in their interest," she said. Golestan added that the core issue is not simply whether Iran and the United States can strike a deal. "The main problem is Israel," she said. Her statement reflects a wider concern among Iranian observers: even if Tehran and Washington do find some common ground, regional actors and competing agendas could still complicate or weaken peace efforts. What leverage does Tehran still have? While Iran still has cards to play, namely its threats over the Strait of Hormuz, the war has significantly weakened its hand. But even the option of closing the strategic waterway or attacking ships trying to sail through it has arguably become even riskier. Shortly after the talks in Islamabad ended, President Donald Trump announced a US naval blockade of Iranian ports due to take effect on Monday afternoon. The escalatory rhetoric used by Trump just hours after the Islamabad talks ended shows how delicate this moment is for Iran. The ceasefire is still holding, and neither side appears ready to close the door to further talks. But inside Iran, people are no longer measuring events only in terms of strategy or prestige. They are measuring them in terms of jobs lost, rising prices, factories closing and the fear that if diplomacy fails again, the next round of war could be even harder to survive. Edited by: Karl Sexton