By Independent News Roundup
In an interview with Lena Petrova on World Affairs in Context, Dr. Mohammad Marandi—who has previously been involved in Iran-U.S. negotiations—outlined Tehran’s perspective on the failed talks, the evolving military situation, and the potential for a prolonged conflict.
According to Marandi, negotiations between Iranian and U.S. representatives in Islamabad initially showed signs of progress before breaking down late in the process.
He claims the U.S. delegation, led by Vice President JD Vance, altered its negotiating position during discussions, ultimately steering talks toward failure.
“Late in the day… the United States changed its negotiating position and pushed the negotiations towards failure,” Marandi said.
Marandi also suggested that decision-making authority may not have rested solely with U.S. negotiators, alleging external influence over the process.
Marandi indicated that Iranian officials entered the talks with limited expectations, citing previous experiences with U.S. negotiations.
He said Iran’s strategy included participating in talks to demonstrate diplomatic openness while preparing for the possibility of conflict.
“No one… had any real optimism,” he stated, adding that Iran has consistently questioned Washington’s reliability in honoring agreements.
Addressing reports of U.S. efforts to restrict Iranian maritime activity, Marandi argued that any blockade would have broader regional consequences.
He suggested that Gulf states could be more vulnerable than Iran due to their reliance on maritime trade routes, while Iran maintains alternative land-based trade connections with neighboring countries.
“Iran has many neighbors… and has already adjusted its trade routes,” he said.
Marandi added that Iran had anticipated potential disruptions and had taken steps to increase economic resilience, including stockpiling goods and diversifying supply chains.
The interview also highlighted concerns about the wider economic implications of the conflict.
Marandi warned that disruptions to oil, gas, and petrochemical flows could contribute to a broader global energy and supply crisis, with knock-on effects for agriculture and industry.
“Every minute that shortages grow… the crisis intensifies,” he said.
He argued that rising global prices and supply constraints could place increasing pressure on the United States and its allies.
Marandi described the recent conflict as a large-scale confrontation involving multiple regional actors, asserting that Iran has adapted its military posture in response.
He said Tehran used the ceasefire period to strengthen defensive capabilities and prepare for further escalation if necessary.
“Iran is preparing itself… both sides are calculating their next steps,” he said.
The issue of Iran’s nuclear program remains a key sticking point in negotiations.
Marandi reiterated Tehran’s position that uranium enrichment is a sovereign right and non-negotiable, while suggesting that monitoring arrangements could provide assurances under international frameworks.
He also argued that broader geopolitical tensions extend beyond the nuclear issue, framing it as part of a wider strategic dispute.
With reports of increased military activity in the region, questions remain over whether the current ceasefire will hold.
Marandi suggested that both sides are using the pause to regroup, while warning that continued instability could further strain global markets.
The collapse of the Islamabad talks underscores the widening gap between U.S. and Iranian positions, with both sides appearing to prepare for a prolonged period of tension.
While diplomatic channels remain open in theory, the immediate outlook points to continued geopolitical uncertainty—particularly as energy markets and global supply chains react to developments in the region.
.svg){kind=logo}
