We have good intentions but we do not trust
JD Vance landed in Islamabad to head US delegation negotiations with Iranian officials led by Parliament Speaker Mohamad Baqer Qalibaf. Both sides express willingness to negotiate but harbor deep mistrust; Iran cites history of failed talks while US remains cautiously open to good-faith discussions.
- Iranian delegation of 70+ officials led by Parliament Speaker Mohamad Baqer Qalibaf arrived Friday; US Vice President JD Vance landed Saturday morning
- Nuclear weapons prevention stated as 99% of Trump's negotiating priority
- Both delegations express willingness to negotiate but cite deep historical mistrust and failed past agreements
US Vice President JD Vance arrived in Pakistan to lead negotiations with Iran aimed at ending Middle East conflict, with nuclear weapons development as the primary focus amid mutual distrust.
The Iranian delegation touched down in Islamabad on Friday afternoon, more than seventy officials strong, led by Parliament Speaker Mohamad Baqer Qalibaf. By Saturday morning, US Vice President JD Vance landed at Nur Khan air base on the outskirts of Pakistan's capital, sent by President Donald Trump to head the American negotiating team. The two sides were gathering for what both governments were calling a pivotal summit—an attempt to negotiate an end to the escalating conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran that has destabilized the Middle East for months.
The moment carried enormous weight, and the language surrounding it reflected the stakes. Trump had been explicit about what he wanted from any deal: the prevention of Iranian nuclear weapons development. "Without nuclear weapons. That is the 99 percent," he said before departing Washington for a fundraising event in Virginia. It was a clear signal that while broader regional peace might be on the table, the nuclear question was non-negotiable from the American perspective. Vance, arriving with special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—Trump's son-in-law—was tasked with making that position stick.
Yet the talks were shadowed by a deep, mutual wariness that both sides made little effort to conceal. Qalibaf, upon arriving in Islamabad, offered a statement that captured the Iranian posture perfectly: "We have good intentions but we do not trust." He elaborated that Iran's experience negotiating with the United States had been marked by failure and broken promises. The historical weight of those failed negotiations hung over the proceedings before they had even formally begun. Vance, for his part, adopted a cautiously open stance. "If the Iranians are willing to negotiate in good faith, we are certainly willing to extend an open hand," he said. But the conditional phrasing—the "if"—suggested he was not expecting easy movement.
The backdrop to these talks was one of escalating rhetoric and military posturing. Iran had promised a "crushing and painful retaliation" if Israel continued its attacks on Lebanon. Trump, meanwhile, had issued his own warning, declaring that he was "loading the ships with the best ammunition and the best weapons ever made." These were not the words of parties moving toward compromise. They were the words of adversaries preparing for the possibility that diplomacy might fail.
Pakistan had been chosen as the venue, a neutral ground of sorts, though the presence of Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir greeting Vance upon arrival underscored that even the host nation's military leadership was invested in the outcome. The delegations now faced the difficult work of finding common ground on issues where their positions appeared fundamentally opposed. The Americans wanted to lock down Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians wanted recognition of their regional interests and an end to what they saw as American interference. Both sides said they were willing to talk. Neither side appeared to believe the other was serious.
Notable Quotes
We have good intentions but we do not trust. Our experience negotiating with Americans has always faced failures and broken promises.— Mohamad Baqer Qalibaf, Iranian Parliament Speaker
If the Iranians are willing to negotiate in good faith, we are certainly willing to extend an open hand.— JD Vance, US Vice President
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Pakistan become the venue for this? It seems like an odd choice given the region's complexity.
Pakistan sits between the players without being fully aligned with either. It's a nuclear power itself, which adds a certain credibility when discussing weapons. And it has relationships with both Washington and Tehran, however strained. It's neutral enough to allow both sides to show up without losing face.
The Iranian delegation leader said they have good intentions but don't trust. That's a striking contradiction. What does that actually mean?
It means they're showing up because they have to, because the pressure is real. But they've been burned before—agreements made and then abandoned when administrations changed. So they're hedging. They're saying: we'll talk, but we're not naive about how this ends.
Trump keeps saying nuclear weapons are 99 percent of the issue. Does that mean everything else—the regional conflicts, the proxy wars—is secondary?
Not secondary. But it's the thing America can actually enforce. You can inspect nuclear facilities, verify compliance, impose costs for violations. Regional influence is messier. So Trump is focusing on what he thinks he can control and measure.
Both sides are making military threats while negotiating. How do you negotiate when you're also preparing for war?
You don't, really. Not successfully. The threats are insurance policies. They're saying: we're serious about this, but if you're not, we're ready. It's a way of maintaining credibility with your own side while you're at the table.
What happens if these talks collapse?
Then you're back to the escalation cycle. More Israeli strikes, Iranian retaliation, American military positioning. The window for diplomacy closes a little more each time it fails.