Historic Vance-Ghalibaf talks must bridge deep distrust
Historic Talks Between Vance and Ghalibaf Aim to Rebuild Torn Relations
The potential meeting between US Vice President JD Vance and Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf in Islamabad this weekend could symbolize a turning point in their nations’ relationship. This encounter would represent the first direct dialogue between the two countries since the 1979 Islamic Revolution severed their once-strong alliance, leaving a legacy of tension that continues to influence interactions today.
Despite the high stakes, the atmosphere may remain tense. Neither leader is expected to display warmth, and a handshake might be absent. Yet, the event would underscore a shared goal: to mitigate the impact of a global conflict, prevent further escalation, and pursue diplomatic solutions. However, the likelihood of President Trump’s claim of a “peace deal” within the current two-week ceasefire remains uncertain, as its terms have already faced challenges and were breached shortly after being announced.
The talks come amid lingering skepticism. While the ceasefire offers a brief pause, the deep-rooted mistrust between the US and Iran persists. This is particularly evident in Tehran, where the recent Israeli-American war has intensified doubts about the viability of direct engagement. The negotiating styles of the two sides also differ sharply, with the US delegation relying on high-profile figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, while Iran insists on indirect communication through Oman, their preferred mediator.
A Shift in Strategy
Iran’s decision to elevate Vance to the negotiation table signals a strategic move. Unlike earlier envoys, Vance holds a formal position within the US administration, positioning him as a more credible representative. Additionally, he is regarded as a vocal critic of the military campaign, which contrasts with the approach of Trump’s team. This shift has imposed constraints, particularly in the emphasis on indirect talks, as Iranian hardliners resist direct engagement.
“The dispatch of more senior officials and the high stakes of failure could unlock new opportunities that were previously out of reach,” noted Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, who has observed the evolving dynamics over years. However, he warned that the current situation is “exponentially harder” than before.
The recent negotiations in February 2025, held behind the scenes in Geneva, saw some progress when technical experts like IAEA head Rafael Grossi and seasoned mediators from other nations contributed to discussions. Yet, these efforts faced resistance from Iranian hardliners who feared the embarrassment of public exchanges. Witkoff, known for his solitary approach, often arrived unaccompanied and neglected detailed documentation, further fueling Iranian suspicion.
Compared to the 2018 nuclear deal, where teams included diplomats and scientists from the US, Iran, and key European allies, the current talks lack the same level of institutional support. The absence of senior European mediators and the focus on bilateral talks may complicate the path to a lasting agreement, even as both sides seek to turn the page on a long-standing rivalry.
