The failure of the Islamabad talks is disappointing.

US President Donald Trump's announcement of a blockade of all Iranian ports after the US-Iran talks in Islamabad failed is a provocative move that should be opposed by the global community. Before this announcement, Trump had threatened to completely close the Strait of Hormuz. He had said that no tanker ship from any country would be allowed to enter this waterway. But as often happens, Trump says one thing in one media interview, but changes his tune in another. The same phenomenon happened on Monday too, but due to this, not only the capital markets became unstable, but the prices of crude oil also rose again. Despite such uncertainty and tension, optimistic circles are still hopeful that the US and Iran will definitely return to the negotiating table soon for the next round of talks. One important reason for this kind of optimism is that the negotiators from both sides in Islamabad considered the relationship to be fruitful despite the lack of a common ground for an agreement and did not completely close the door to future talks.

The diplomatic community was clear from the beginning that the Islamabad talks were unlikely to yield miraculous results. Senior officials from both countries were coming face to face with each other after 47 years; therefore, an atmosphere of impasse was unlikely. The atmosphere of the phone conversation between the then US President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who was in New York to address the UN General Assembly in 2013 and the subsequent start of talks between the two countries on Iran’s nuclear program, could not have been created before the Islamabad talks. The circumstances did not allow for such an opportunity. Iran, which was under Israeli and American bombardment, was eager to use the Islamabad talks as a means to save its prestige. The 10-point conditions it put before the US were a clear attempt to obtain maximum concessions. Similarly, the 15-point conditions of the US were also mainly representative of American bullying. It was not an expression of the spirit of honorably withdrawing from a war with each other. Neither side showed any intention of softening their stance. Iran was not ready to lose the advantage of showing its grip on the Strait of Hormuz and using it as a key bargaining chip with the US. Nor was it acceptable for Iran to hand over to the US or any multilateral agency its stockpile of enriched uranium (which, apart from generating electricity, could also be a key source of nuclear weapons) in any case. Overall, both sides did not agree to abandon their respective stubbornness on any one important issue. This stubbornness made the talks unsuccessful.

Despite such a gloomy scenario, it is to be hoped that the two-week ceasefire announced by Trump himself will last until its scheduled end and that neither side will take any action that would signal a return to war. The Strait of Hormuz remains open to commercial shipping for the global trade in crude oil and natural gas. Trump, through his announcements and ultimatums, has not only posed a threat to this shipping but also created new headaches for the economies of his Gulf allies. All these countries, especially the UAE, Qatar, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Oman, have already suffered significant economic losses in the form of Iranian drone and missile attacks and trade deficits. Getting their oil trade back on track is in the interest of them and the rest of the world. Therefore, America should not immediately do anything that is detrimental to its own interests, not only to the rest of the world.