Sameera Casmod | sameerac@radioislam.co.za
15 April 2026 | 13:55 CAT
4-minute read

Image source: Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

As tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran intensify, questions are growing about whether diplomacy ever stood a chance. Dr Sami Al-Arian argues that what we are witnessing is not failed negotiation, but a deeper strategic confrontation reshaping the region.

The 21-hour face-to-face session that took place in Islamabad on 11-12 April marks the highest-level direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since 1979. But these were not really negotiations, Dr Al-Arian posits, explaining that while the Americans said they would negotiate the 10-point plan with Iran, they refuted the concept of reparations and refused almost all Iran’s demands.

“Even though the US president, in his tweet and his poll said that his delegation would go to Islamabad based on the 10-point plan presented by Iran, what actually happened was different… Americans were not truthful when they said they are going there to discuss or to negotiate based on the 10-point plan. And, of course, there was an impasse,” Dr Al-Arian, director of the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Public Affairs Professor, and political activist.

During the session, US Vice President JD Vance, leading the American delegation, told the Iranian delegation that they would have to adhere to four US demands to reach an agreement. These were that Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz unconditionally, that it removes its stockpile of 440 kilograms of enriched uranium from the country, that Iran accepts the zero-enrichment demand by Israel and the US, and that they break ties with their allies.

“The Iranians would never accept these conditions. Actually, the Iranians have more leverage now than they had before the war,” Dr Al-Arian said.

In addition to these conditions, the US rejected Iran’s requests – including one to have control over the Strait of Hormuz – and would review the request to lift primary and secondary sanctions. The US is using Iran’s request for sanctions relief as a bargaining chip for its missile program, insisting that any removal of sanctions is contingent on Iran limiting the number and range of its ballistic missiles.

World leaders are now signalling a potential second round of talks to prevent a return to full-scale war, which indicates that the USA is desperate for a resolution to this impasse, Dr Al-Arian said.

“The Iranians are not going to submit, are not going to surrender. And the [Americans are the] ones who keep flip-flopping, keeps changing their opinion, one day they want to obliterate the Iranians, end Iranian civilisation. And the second day, they talk about negotiations based on the Iranian position,” Dr Al-Arian said.

Washington does not have a solution to the problem they created with the Israelis, he added, and observed that up until the US allied with Israel to wage war on Iran, the Strait of Hormuz was very much open and operational. Since facing an existential threat with the onset of wat, Iran has displayed significant military capabilities – not only against American military bases, but against numerous US allies in the region.

Dr Al-Arian outlined three possible outcomes of the US-Iran standoff.

The first – and most likely, according to Dr Al-Arian, is a negotiated compromise, which will see the US return to talks and accept Iran’s core red lines. These include limited enrichment rights, no surrender on missiles and allies, sanctions relief, and the right to control the Strait of Hormuz.

This would mean a clear defeat for the US, who would not have achieved any of its objectives.

“They would have to accept this as they have in the past. They won every battle in Vietnam, but they were defeated. They won every battle in Afghanistan. They had to withdraw. They were defeated. And the same goes for Iraq. So they have a history of winning battles, but losing wars,” Dr Al-Arian said.

The second is a prolonged escalation, which would entail continued pressure tactics (including blockades) that will trigger gradual escalation, with both sides absorbing sustained economic and military strain.

The third is a catastrophic military escalation, with the US intensifying strikes which would provoke a severe Iranian response. This would risk regional collapse and global economic shock. Dr Al-Arian explained that the US does not have the military capacity it had during the 1991 invasion to remove Iraq from occupying Kuwait, nor during its involvement in the Iraqi regime change of 2003.

“So what he can do is basically use, perhaps, more destructive power, including – and that would be completely crazy – nuclear weapons, in which he goes after the oil and production and facilities and refineries of Iran, the power grids and bridges as he’s threatened in the past,” Dr Al-Arian said.

“If he does that, Iran will immediately destroy many of the countries, their allies, including Israel, in which this would be a catastrophic and that will guarantee a total collapse of the global economy and a devastating impact across the region. I don’t think that’s likely, but he’s putting it out there,” he added.

Listen to the full interview with Dr Sami Al-Arian on Sabaahul Muslim, presented by Moulana Sulaimaan Ravat.