PNN – The Guardian writes in this report that Vance entered the negotiations in a situation where the Iranian side, after withstanding widespread attacks by the United States and the Zionist regime, as well as developments related to the Strait of Hormuz, sees itself in a superior position, and this has changed the balance of negotiations to Washington’s detriment.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; While widely covering the talks between Iran and the United States, mediated by Pakistan, in Islamabad, European media outlets emphasize that the American delegation, headed by US Vice President JD Vance, participated in these talks with limited leverage and that Washington does not have the initiative.
The Guardian writes in this report that Vance entered the negotiations in a situation where the Iranian side, after withstanding widespread attacks by the US and the Zionist regime, as well as developments related to the Strait of Hormuz, sees itself in a superior position, and this has changed the balance of negotiations to Washington’s disadvantage.
The British media outlet emphasizes that Vance’s mission is to achieve a lasting agreement, but achieving this goal requires a difficult decision between making concessions to Iran or accepting the risk of failure of the negotiations, which also faces opposition within the United States.
In another part of the report, it is stated that some former US negotiators believe that recent developments in the Strait of Hormuz have provided Tehran with significant leverage, such that even if the United States leaves the negotiating table, there will be no guarantee of the continuation of the free flow of energy and maritime trade, and this could have widespread economic consequences for global markets.
The report also points to disagreements within the US government, writing that Vance did not play a prominent role in managing the war narrative from the beginning, and figures such as the US Secretaries of War and State have had a more active presence in this field.
According to the Guardian, this relative marginalization has now made Vance’s mission more complicated, as he must enter the field in a situation where he not only has limited leverage, but also faces conflicting expectations inside and outside the US.
Overall, the Guardian concludes that Vance’s mission in Islamabad is more than a simple diplomatic opportunity, but a high-stakes test of his ability to manage a complex crisis whose consequences could affect regional equations and even the political future of the United States beyond the negotiating table.
Meanwhile, the Financial Times cautiously described these talks as one of the most important political contacts between Tehran and Washington in recent decades, but at the same time emphasized the distance between the two sides’ positions and the uncertainty over the outcome of the talks.
In Spain, El Pais described the process as an uncertain negotiation, writing that the talks are taking place in an atmosphere of deep distrust between the two sides.
The Efe news agency also spoke of the atmosphere of distrust prevailing in the negotiations and raised the possibility of the process being prolonged.
In France, Le Monde, in a more blunt tone, assessed the US position in these negotiations as precarious, writing that Washington faced challenges in managing the consequences of the war and setting the diplomatic course.
The newspaper also pointed to the role of developments in the Strait of Hormuz in strengthening Iran’s bargaining position, considering it one of the determining factors in the negotiation equations.