Expert on stalled peace talks: “Strange”

Felix Wilow

Updated 14.46 | Published 13.22

The peace talks came to an abrupt end.

There are only losers left.

– It is a high-stakes game, says Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict research.

Quick version

• The peace talks held in Pakistan between the US and Iran were called off after 21 hours, leaving disagreements and dissatisfaction on both sides.
• One of the biggest stumbling blocks in the negotiations was Iran's nuclear energy program, with the US demanding a clear commitment from Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.
• Despite high costs for both the US and Iran as a result of the conflict, pressure from the US was not effective, which meant that the negotiations were called off without an agreement.

After 21 hours, the US delegation, led by Vice President JD Vance, resigned and left the peace talks in Pakistan.

An unexpected move, according to Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University.

– The negotiating potential that exists is not being utilized, he says.

Disagreements over nuclear weapons

This week, a two-week ceasefire was announced between the US and Iran. The fact that the US is already presenting a “take it or leave it” proposal is what surprises Isak Svensson the most.

– They are putting pressure on Iran and it is not surprising that they are not reaching an agreement. What is strange in this situation is that they then choose to interrupt the negotiations, instead of saying that they are continuing the negotiations and utilizing this time.

 

          

          

US envoy Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff and JD Vance in Islamabad. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin /AP/TT

 

What seems to be the most irritating is Iran's nuclear energy program. The country is said to have enough highly enriched uranium to make ten bombs.

According to JD Vance, the US is demanding a “clear commitment” that Iran will not try to acquire nuclear weapons – or the means required to achieve one.

Iran blames the stalled negotiations on “unreasonable demands” and “American greed”.

– There are a number of different issues that need to be agreed upon and they are all complicated, says Isak Svensson.

         

 

         

Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict management at Uppsala University. Photo: Pressbild/           Uppsala University

High costs

What will happen in the future is uncertain. Historically, the kind of pressure that the US is trying to put on Iran is not something that usually bites.

– If you look at their negotiation history, they have not been inclined to back down under pressure. Quite the opposite. It is clear that the war means a very difficult situation for Iran, but it is not that they have come to the conclusion that they have lost and will capitulate.

“Reasons to reach a negotiated solution”

At the same time, continued war means high costs for both sides.

– For Iran, the war has been directly costly and destroyed much of their infrastructure, military and political leadership. It is an enormous cost and several thousand civilians have been killed, says Isak Svensson and continues:

– For the US, it is indirectly costly. Partly the military operation but also Iran's control over the Strait of Hormuz has affected the entire world economy, which also affects them. So both sides have reasons to reach a negotiated solution, says Isak Svensson.

         

 

         The Strait of Hormuz. Photo: Altaf Qadri /AP

 

And despite the setback in Islamabad, he highlights a positive development.

– It is worth noting that they have discussed a number of substantial issues. They seem to have made some progress on that and if they want to come to an agreement, they seem to have resolved some things.