The latest stutter steps to plague US-Iran talks — marked by cancellations and missed meetings in Pakistan — has sharpened a central question hanging over the high-stakes negotiation: Is this a temporary breakdown, or evidence that the two sides are not negotiating at the same table at all?

Plans for the sides to gather in Islamabad over the weekend fell apart on Saturday, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi leaving Pakistan and US President Donald Trump telling his negotiators to turn back at the last second and describing the trip and the talks as a waste of time. This came after Tehran earlier rejected attending a planned second round of direct talks.

“They can call us anytime they want, but you’re not going to be making any more 18-hour flights to sit around talking about nothing,” Trump said he told special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Both sides have continued to exchange proposals indirectly, but the episode underscored a widening gap — not just over substance, but over how negotiations themselves should unfold.

For some analysts, that gap reflects the messy reality of high-stakes diplomacy. For others, it signals something more fundamental: a process designed to buy time rather than reach a deal.

Sanam Vakil, director of the Chatham House think tank’s Middle East and North Africa Program, cautioned against reading too much into the failed meeting itself.

“All negotiations are very difficult,” she said, emphasizing that while direct talks may be paused, indirect exchanges are still ongoing.

From that perspective, the missed connection does not necessarily indicate a setback or impending collapse, but rather a familiar phase in negotiations in which both sides test their leverage and set conditions.

While the delays and false starts may be part of tactical maneuvering on the part of Tehran, it may also be a symptom of a lack of clarity within Iran’s leadership itself regarding what its negotiating position is.

Beni Sabti, a senior Iran researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, argued that Tehran may no longer have a coherent negotiating framework following the death of supreme leader Ali Khamenei in a February 28 US-Israeli strike.

During the late ayatollah’s reign, Sabti said, “he was guiding them on what to give up and what not to give up.”

Now, “it seems that they actually don’t know what to talk about. They jump from one issue to another,” he said.

Vakil similarly pointed to the erosion of previously rigid boundaries.

“They don’t have the same sort of restraints that they did before,” she said, noting that Ali Khamenei had enforced clear red lines, including opposition to direct talks. That taboo was broken when senior US and Iranian officials met in Islamabad........

© The Times of Israel