Across Iran’s political spectrum—from senior officials to hardline lawmakers—the failure of the 21-hour negotiations has been framed not as the end of talks but as a moment to test leverage, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz and Washington’s newly announced naval blockade.
Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, who was part of the Iranian delegation in Islamabad, placed responsibility for the breakdown squarely on Washington while leaving room for further engagement.
In a post on X, he wrote that distrust toward the United States stems from “the experiences of the previous two wars,” adding that Washington failed to convince Tehran while leaving open whether the Americans could “earn our trust.”
President Masoud Pezeshkian struck a softer tone, signaling conditional openness to diplomacy.
“If the American government abandons its totalitarianism and respects the rights of the Iranian nation, ways to reach an agreement will certainly be found,” he wrote on X.
All about Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz—through which roughly a fifth of global oil flows—has rapidly emerged as both a bargaining chip and a symbolic red line in Tehran’s messaging.
President Donald Trump announced a US naval blockade aimed at preventing vessels from entering or leaving Iranian ports and intercepting ships that pay transit fees to Tehran.
US Central Command said the blockade would begin Monday and apply to vessels of all nations calling at Iranian ports.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy warned that any escalation in the waterway could have severe consequences, cautioning that “any miscalculation will trap the enemy in deadly whirlpools in the strait.”
Hardline voices have increasingly framed control of the waterway as a source of revenue and national prestige.
“From now on… we will have a third source of income called the Strait of Hormuz,” lawmaker Amir-Hossein Sabeti said at a pro-government rally.
University professor and commentator Foad Izadi suggested in a post on X that future confrontation could transform the strait into Iran’s “most important source of income,” while hinting that alternative export routes could become targets.
‘Taboo broken’
Some Iranian analysts warn that the US blockade risks pushing both sides closer to military confrontation.
Political analyst Ruhollah Rahimpour described the move as “beating the drums of war,” arguing that Washington is effectively testing Iran’s economic lifeline.
“Iran’s economy is locked into the chokepoint of Hormuz, and now Trump has decided to test this lock with a hammer,” he said. “In such a situation, either the lock opens, or the whole door will be torn off.”
Reformist voices, however, emphasized the historic nature of the talks themselves.
Former lawmaker Mahmoud Sadeghi described the direct engagement as “a major taboo-breaking moment,” noting the significance of Iranian and American officials meeting at such a level after nearly half a century.
Journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi similarly argued that failure in Islamabad “does not mean a definite failure of diplomacy,” warning that a return to full-scale war would produce an “irreversible catastrophe for all parties.”
Former Vice President Mohammad-Ali Abtahi also struck a cautious tone, writing that “47 years of open hostility cannot be resolved in a few hours.
