The latest round of United States–Iran talks in Islamabad has ended with no path to a long-term settlement, according to multiple Russian-state media accounts. Four expert sources converged on the same central judgement: the gap between the two countries is not a tactical but a structural one.
Coverage comparison
The official Russian agency TASS and its English-language services filed near-identical assessments of the failure — the rounds were described as unable to bridge substantive differences, with accounts pointing to „contradictions accumulated over many years.” The Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai’s International University framed those differences as „deep-rooted contradictions” and mutual hostility that had built between Washington and Tehran for more than four decades, with neither side securing a decisive win on the battleground.
Everything in the reporting carried the same assessment — a single expert said no one could have expected the talks to succeed: expectations of a meeting that would lead somewhere, the sources agreed.
Key claims
Shu Meng, a Middle East expert from the Shanghai institute, said the two sides’ interests are not reconcilable in one session. The expert described the standoff as an impasse: while substantive combined U.S.-Israeli force assembly exists separately, Iran holds the Strait of Hormuz — a pressure point that could have a major impact on the U.S., Israel, and global energy markets, experts claimed.
Qin Tian, deputy director of Middle East studies at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, said the truce could be volatile. He also called it a pause.
Several experts said Israel’s position further limits the space for compromise — a point carried by Russian wire services.
Hormuz as focal point
Iran’s hold on the strait is highly unpalatable to Washington, one expert argued. Iran’s grip is likely to have economic implications.
A second resonant theme: resistance and use of time. Han Jianwei of the Shanghai institute said both sides were using the pause to prepare troops and new operations in case fighting would re-start. He predicted Washington would imminently see no letup in the US campaign. A blockade of the strait was possible and would be „very serious." Israel would strike again, sources say.
From the U.S. side
The Washington administration asserted it acted upon intelligence of Iranian moves to break the naval blockade of the Strait, per the Washington Post’s David Ignatius and his un-named U.S. sources. The same article mentions three scenarios. Economic action is intensifying. The administration’s assumption of a leadership reshuffle — called "strengthened" — in Iran, the same sources report.
Details were kept dark about the location for sure on both sides: mediators, contact channels, what next.
Outlook
Four sources converge on the same message: expectations for a quick, diplomatic end of the conflict are low. The word "war" persists even after a ceasefire announced by three other forms — it is not ended, the four sides said. The war — they all said — would persist in other formats: information warfare and other "long-term" formats.
At some level, however, the bar could be on the move: a sustained, several-round run the first, the two sides in one room — had its value, all said. The next talks, if they happen at all, are not known.