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

A marathon-style negotiation, and in the end, neither side even left with a handshake!
This negotiation in Islamabad between the U.S. and Iran finally reached a phased result—precisely, a result of no result.
According to local time on the 12th from Iran, 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 ready to return home.
Twenty-one hours of negotiations, only to get a phrase: "No agreement reached." 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 outline the timeline.
Starting from noon on the 11th, both sides entered a "preheating" phase.
Iran's side was a 71-person "relocation" 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.
Then there was text proofreading by technical teams, dragging on until after 3 a.m.
Did it end there? No. The negotiations continued 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 mediation, also added: "We will return to the U.S. without an agreement."
This statement sounds light, but the underlying message is clear—the ball is in Iran's court; you guys didn't catch it.
2. The Strait of Hormuz: One table, two stories
The core dispute in this negotiation was always about control of the Strait of Hormuz.
The U.S. proposed "joint control." Iran responded straightforwardly: 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.
But what made this negotiation dramatic was an incident that occurred during the talks.
While both sides sat face-to-face in the hotel, the U.S. released news: 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 provided an entirely 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? Not necessarily anyone—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, the nuclear issue has always been the card kept under the table.
Vance revealed this at the press conference.
He clearly stated: The core reason for the failure of the U.S.-Iran agreement is that Iran has not made a clear commitment to abandon developing nuclear weapons.
Note that Vance used the wording: "Not only to cease current activities but also to commit long-term not to acquire related capabilities and technologies."
This requirement is quite high. It’s not just about stopping Iran’s current nuclear activities but also about Tehran voluntarily giving up the possibility of nuclear capability 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 their response.
The implied message 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 deprives Iran of strategic assets.
Both sides stick to their words, and no one is willing to back down.
The negotiation texts have been revised countless times, but the core disagreements remain unchanged.
4. 71 people versus 300 people: 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 scale and momentum to exert pressure.
Core members include Special Envoy Wittkopf and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, indicating this isn’t just a team of professional diplomats following procedures but a highly private, 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.
Among the 71, there are main negotiators, as well as experts in politics, military, economy, law, and even media representatives.
The logic is "small but precise"—each sector focusing on the details.
There’s no superiority in either style, but they reveal a deeper issue: the two sides fundamentally have different expectations for this negotiation.
The U.S. wants a "framework consensus," setting broad directions 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 is both a traditional U.S. ally with long-term security cooperation and maintains good neighborly relations with Iran, holding diplomatic credibility in Tehran.
More importantly, 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 is not just a "mouthpiece" in this negotiation but an active persuader.
This positioning is very important—just passing messages isn’t enough; both sides need to have 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 reluctant to be drawn into military confrontation.
Mediation is both proactive and a form of risk avoidance.
6. No deal, then what?
Twenty-one hours, no agreement, and the U.S. delegation returns home.
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, and both sides just need time to reassess their bottom lines.
During the negotiations, Trump said something interesting: "I don’t care whether we reach an agreement; regardless of the outcome, America wins."
This is a typical "pre-set winner" rhetoric—first declare victory, and whatever happens later, it can be justified by that conclusion.
If an agreement is reached, it’s a win; if not, it’s still a win—no loss.
Vance’s comment at the press conference that "this is worse news for Iran" follows the same logic—shifting the blame for failure onto 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 21-hour presence of the 71-person delegation in Islamabad, ending with an empty-handed return, is already a form of pressure.
What will happen next? Negotiations may continue, perhaps at a lower technical level, or maybe—who knows—tensions over the strait could escalate again.
The only certainty is that the few U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz won’t withdraw anytime soon.
Unresolved issues on the negotiation table often end up being settled on the sea surface.