Iran: “US Unable to Win Our Trust” — The Diplomatic Culture Behind the Breakdown

The failed negotiations between the United States and Iran expose more than a disagreement over terms: they reveal Washington’s inability to secure the one currency that matters most in Tehran: trust.

Diplomacy may be understood as the structured practice through which states manage conflict, negotiate interests, and construct frameworks of coexistence under conditions of uncertainty (Bjola and Kornprobst, 2023). At its core lies not merely the exchange of positions, but the gradual production of trust, built through consistency and the credible alignment between words and actions. This process unfolds over time, often resisting the immediacy sought by more transactional approaches.

The collapse of the latest round of negotiations between the United States and Iran marks a familiar, if still consequential, inflection point in an already fragile diplomatic landscape. After 21 hours of talks in Islamabad—a setting that itself reflects the broader regional stakes—both sides have walked away without securing even a minimal framework for de-escalation. Iran insisted on securing its rights to enrich uranium for civil purposes; for the U.S., this is a red line, and it insisted on imposing its agenda.

Yet, the breakdown is less about diplomatic exhaustion and more about a persistent deficit of trust. Iranian officials have been explicit in framing the outcome through this lens. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf highlighted that, despite what he described as “constructive initiatives” put forward by the Iranian delegation, Washington ultimately failed to gain Tehran’s confidence in this round of negotiations. The implication is clear: for Iran, the issue is not merely the content of proposals, but the credibility of the actor advancing them.

This perspective is reinforced by Mohammad Javad Zarif, a central figure in the 2015 nuclear negotiations. His intervention points to a deeper structural tension—namely, the enduring perception in Tehran that the United States approaches diplomacy through imposition rather than reciprocity. As Zarif put it, negotiations with Iran cannot succeed if framed in terms of “our terms” versus “your terms,” a critique that implicitly challenges the hierarchical logic often embedded in US negotiating strategies.

From Washington’s side, the tone was notably different. Speaking in the early hours, JD Vance framed the absence of an agreement in markedly asymmetrical terms, suggesting that the failure would ultimately weigh more heavily on Iran than on the United States. His reference to a “final and best offer,” coupled with the reiteration of clearly defined “red lines,” signals a perception that the diplomatic space has, for now, been exhausted.

What emerges from these contrasting narratives is not simply a failed negotiation but a deeper misalignment in diplomatic epistemologies. For the United States, the process appears to hinge on leverage and the enforcement of boundaries; for Iran, it centres on recognition, mutual respect, and—crucially—trust built over time. The memory of the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement and the twice-bombing of Iran during negotiations, all under Donald Trump, continues to shape this outlook, reinforcing scepticism towards American commitments. The lack of experience of the American delegation in high-stakes diplomatic negotiations, contrasted with seasoned Iranian negotiators, might have played a role, too.

At a more personal level, something is revealing in the tone and timing of the statements emerging from both sides. The US announcement, delivered at dawn after prolonged discussions, conveys fatigue and a sense of closure. The Iranian responses, by contrast, read as measured but firm, grounded in a longer-term narrative of mistrust rather than the immediacy of a single failed round, adding that the doors are open for further negotiations.

In that sense, this episode does not represent a rupture but rather a continuation, although Donald Trump is not accustomed to diplomatic tempo but to expedited deal-making. The negotiations in Islamabad have once again exposed the limits of a process where the divide is not only strategic but perceptual. Concretely, Tehran seeks prior confidence-building measures and credible guarantees to re-enter further substantive negotiations.

Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook