Iran’s delegation to the first round of post-ceasefire talks with the US in Islamabad arrived on a plane named Minab 168 after the people – mostly young schoolgirls – killed in a US bombing early in the war. The name signalled both grievance and resolve, framing the talks as part of a conflict in which Tehran has already absorbed immense costs.

That framing helps explain how Iranian officials approached the talks and how they view the current impasse. Rather than negotiation from a position of weakness or urgency, they see diplomacy as an extension of a battle they believe they endured without losing their core advantages. With the ceasefire set to expire on Wednesday and no diplomatic breakthrough in sight, the risk of a return to war is sharply rising.

From the Iranian vantage point, military pressure did not break their position. Their main leverage remains: stockpiles of enriched uranium, the disruption of the strait of Hormuz and its global economic ramifications, and a wartime record of absorbing sustained US and Israeli strikes over more than 40 days while continuing to strike back across the region with missiles, drones, and allied forces in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.

This stands in sharp contrast to prevailing assumptions in Washington, where the focus has been on how pressure might accelerate Iranian concessions. Iran, however, appears more willing to bide its time, hold on to its core leverage, and pursue a broader strategic settlement that links its development and prosperity to that of the Gulf and, by extension, the global economy.

That divergence reflects a deeper mismatch in how each side understands the trajectory of the conflict. For US policymakers, the central question is what combination of military and economic tools can compel movement on far-reaching demands, including curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, missile capabilities and regional alliances. For Iranian decision-makers, the question is whether those demands require trading away what they see as core pillars of security.

That concern has only hardened in the aftermath of the war. More than ever, Iran’s ability to disrupt Hormuz, alongside its nuclear threshold capability, missiles and regional alliance network, are treated in Tehran not as negotiable assets but as foundational sources of power and security. In this........

© The Guardian