#Gate广场四月发帖挑战 Did they talk for 21 hours straight? We’ve broken down this big show between the U.S. and Iran for you.

A marathon-style negotiation, in the end, neither side even left with a handshake!
The negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in Islamabad finally reached a phased result—precisely, a result of no result.
According to local time reports from Iran on the 12th, the talks “ended just minutes ago,” and due to “U.S. greed and ambition,” no agreement was reached.
Almost simultaneously, U.S. Vice President Vance confirmed at a press conference in Islamabad: “No deal, we’re preparing to return home.”
Twenty-one hours of negotiations, only to get a phrase: “No agreement reached yet.” Vance was more straightforward: “This is worse news for Iran than for the U.S.”
But is that really the case? Let’s break down this 21-hour marathon, and you’ll find many interesting things.
1. What exactly happened during these 21 hours? Let’s briefly go over the timeline.
Starting from noon on the 11th, both sides entered a “preheating” phase. Iran sent a 71-person “moving-style” delegation, with experts covering politics, military, economy, law, and more. The U.S. delegation had 300 people—though many were security and protocol staff, the scale was indeed impressive.
Formal face-to-face negotiations began at 17:30 and lasted until 2 a.m. the next day, a full 8.5 hours. Afterwards, technical teams continued proofreading documents until around 3 a.m. Do you think that was the end? Not at all. The negotiations extended into the 12th, totaling 21 hours.
Vance revealed at the press conference that during these 21 hours, both sides engaged in “multiple substantive discussions,” and the U.S. clearly laid out its “red lines”—acceptable and unacceptable conditions were all on the table. But Iran “chose not to accept these terms.”
So, the U.S. delegation left empty-handed.
Vance, while thanking Pakistan for its mediation, also added: “We will return to the U.S. without an agreement.” This statement sounds light, but the implication is clear—the ball is in Iran’s court; you guys just didn’t catch it.
2. The Strait of Hormuz: One table, two stories
The core dispute in these negotiations was actually the control of the Strait of Hormuz from start to finish.
The U.S. proposed a “joint control” plan. Iran’s response was straightforward: no, this waterway must be fully controlled by us, and we have the right to charge “tolls” to passing ships. Iran’s National Security Council Chairman Aziz even publicly stated on social media: the Strait of Hormuz will only open with Iran’s permission.
What truly made this negotiation dramatic was the incident that occurred during the talks.
While representatives sat face-to-face in a hotel, the U.S. announced: two U.S. Navy destroyers had transited the Strait of Hormuz that day and entered the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Central Command also tweeted confirming this, claiming it was to “clear sea mines” in the strait.
However, Iran’s side gave a completely opposite version: the U.S. ships tried to enter the strait but were blocked by Revolutionary Guard vessels. After a brief standoff, they “were forced to retreat.”
The same event, two completely conflicting stories. Who is lying? Actually, no one may be outright lying; it’s more likely both sides are defining “facts” in their own way. The U.S. signals “the strait is not yours to say,” while Iran wants to tell the world “come over, and we’ll block you.”
This state of mutual storytelling is actually a microcosm of the entire negotiation—if even a fact can’t be agreed upon, how can an agreement be reached?
3. The nuclear issue: The U.S. “red line” emerges
If the Strait of Hormuz is the dispute on the table, then the nuclear issue is the card always kept under the table. Vance laid it out during the press conference.
He clearly stated: the core reason why the U.S. and Iran failed to reach an agreement is that Iran did not make a clear commitment to abandon developing nuclear weapons. Note, Vance used the wording: “not only currently not developing, but also committing long-term not to acquire related capabilities and technologies.”
This requirement is quite high. It’s not just about stopping current nuclear activities but demanding Tehran to voluntarily give up the possibility of possessing nuclear capabilities for a long time— even civilian-level technology accumulation might be seen by the U.S. as “crossing the line.”
Vance also said that the U.S. has presented Iran with a “final plan,” and is now waiting for Iran’s response. The implication is: our bottom line is clear, whether you accept it or not is up to you.
Iran’s side claims that “U.S. greed and ambition” caused the failure of the deal. In Iran’s narrative, the U.S. wants too much and gives too little; the so-called “joint control” essentially strips Iran of strategic assets.
Both sides stick to their words, and no one is willing to back down. The negotiation texts have gone through many rounds of revision, but the core disagreements remain unchanged.
4. 71 versus 300: Two negotiation philosophies behind the numbers
Another interesting detail: the scale of the delegations.
The U.S. has 300 people, Iran 71. At first glance, the gap seems large, but it’s not just about “more people, more power.”
Among the 300 U.S. delegates, security and protocol staff make up a significant portion, but even so, this scale reflects a negotiation style—treating negotiations as a “display of national strength,” using pomp and momentum to exert pressure.
Core members include Special Envoy Wittekov and Trump’s son-in-law Kushner, indicating this isn’t just a team of professional diplomats following procedures, but a highly personalized, highly trusted team. Trump chose his most trusted people to control the pace, preventing the State Department’s “establishment” from interfering.
A photo taken and released by the Pakistani Prime Minister’s Office on April 11, 2026, shows U.S. Vice President JD Vance (left) shaking hands with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif before the U.S.-Iran peace talks. (Photo provided by the Pakistani Prime Minister’s Office / AFP)
Iran’s side, though smaller, is very carefully composed. The 71 members include main negotiators, as well as experts in politics, military, economy, law, and even media representatives. The logic is “small but refined,” with each sector focusing on detailed issues.
There’s no superiority in either style; they reflect a deeper problem: the two sides’ expectations for this negotiation are fundamentally on different channels.
The U.S. wants a “framework consensus,” setting the big direction first and then filling in details; Iran, from the start, is scrutinizing every word because they don’t trust the U.S. to follow through on commitments later.
This trust deficit is even harder to bridge than the ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
5. Why Pakistan? The host’s choice is very clever
Another unavoidable question: why was such an important negotiation held in Islamabad?
Pakistan’s role is very special. It’s both a traditional U.S. ally with long-term security cooperation with Washington, and also maintains good neighborly relations with Iran, holding diplomatic credibility in Tehran.
More critically, Pakistan’s Army Chief Munir has opened communication channels between the U.S. and Iranian military, which is a scarce resource given the mutual distrust.
Xinhua News Agency
Some analysts say Pakistan isn’t just a “messenger” in this negotiation but an active persuader. This positioning is very important—just passing messages isn’t enough; both sides need some weight to sit at the negotiation table for 21 hours.
Vance also specifically thanked Pakistan for its mediation, saying it played a positive role in bridging differences. This isn’t just politeness—without Pakistan as an intermediary, this negotiation might not have even started.
Of course, Pakistan has its own calculations. It has a joint strategic defense agreement with Saudi Arabia, and if U.S.-Iran conflict escalates, Pakistan is very reluctant to be drawn into military confrontation. The mediation is both proactive and a form of risk avoidance.
6. No deal, then what?
Twenty-one hours, no agreement, U.S. delegation returns home. That’s the current outcome.
But “no deal” doesn’t mean “collapse.” Vance made it clear that the U.S. has proposed a final plan and is waiting for Iran’s response. This means the door isn’t closed; channels are still open, just that both sides need time to reassess their bottom lines.
During the negotiations, Trump said something interesting: “I don’t care whether we reach an agreement; no matter the outcome, the U.S. wins.” This is a typical “pre-set winner” rhetoric—first declare victory, and whatever happens later, it can be justified by that. If they succeed, it’s a win; if not, it’s still a win—no loss.
Vance’s comment at the press conference that “this is even worse news for Iran” follows the same logic. Blaming the failure on the other side while leaving room for retreat.
As for Iran, its situation is more delicate. If it accepts the U.S. “final plan,” it might face backlash from hardliners domestically; if it refuses, it will continue to suffer sanctions and isolation. The 71-person delegation spent 21 hours in Islamabad and left empty-handed, and this result itself is a form of pressure.
What will happen next? Negotiations might continue, possibly at a lower technical level, or perhaps—who knows—the confrontation over the strait could escalate again.
The only certainty is that the few ships in the Strait of Hormuz won’t be withdrawing anytime soon. Unresolved issues at the negotiation table often end up being settled on the sea.