ConflictClarifier

מעקב משבר איראן-המפרץ 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 13, 2026

Iran war: Talks collapse is bad news for ordinary Iranians

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

Actors involved

USIsraelIran

Sources

  • Daniel AmeriBy Daniel Ameri

    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 agree

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran