Tehran has alleged that a phone call from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to US Vice President JD Vance interrupted a diplomatic opening that might have brought the Iran-Israel-US war closer to an end, adding a new layer of dispute to already failed negotiations in Islamabad. The claim, carried in Iranian and other regional reporting after the collapse of 21 hours of talks, has not been independently confirmed by leading Western wire services or by official statements from Washington or Jerusalem that have so far focused instead on deeper disagreements over Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions, reparations and the Strait of Hormuz.
The allegation matters because it seeks to reframe the story of why the talks broke down. On the US side, Vance said the central obstacle was Iran’s refusal to give a firm commitment that it would not pursue nuclear weapons. Iranian negotiators, led by parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, said Washington failed to build trust and tabled demands that were too sweeping after weeks of war and joint US-Israeli strikes. Tehran’s version now goes further, suggesting that outside political intervention from Israel altered the tone or direction of the negotiations at a delicate moment.
What can be established with greater confidence is the chronology. High-level talks between the United States and Iran were held in Islamabad under Pakistani mediation and ran for about 21 hours before ending without agreement. They took place against the backdrop of a fragile two-week ceasefire following a six-week conflict that began on February 28 and spread beyond Iran to Lebanon and Gulf shipping lanes. The ceasefire remains under strain, with unresolved arguments over whether Israeli operations in Lebanon fall within its scope and with maritime tensions still centred on Hormuz, one of the world’s most important oil transit routes.
Available reporting from the United States has stressed that Vance remained in repeated contact with President Donald Trump during the Islamabad negotiations. One account cited Vance as saying Trump called him “a dozen times”, while other reports said he also stayed in touch with senior members of the administration. That makes Tehran’s allegation plausible in the narrow sense that outside calls were taking place during the talks, but it does not by itself establish that Netanyahu’s intervention derailed an imminent settlement. No authoritative public readout has yet confirmed such a call or described it as decisive.
The harder evidence points to a negotiation that was always burdened by clashing war aims. Washington sought binding curbs on Iran’s nuclear activity and freer navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran wanted relief from pressure built up during the conflict, including access to frozen assets, recognition of its leverage in Hormuz, and broader political concessions linked to sanctions and regional security. Those competing objectives were not peripheral issues that could be brushed aside in a single phone call; they were the substance of the talks themselves.
That does not mean Tehran’s claim should be dismissed outright. Israel has been a principal military and political actor in the confrontation with Iran, and Netanyahu has repeatedly signalled opposition to any outcome that would leave Tehran with strategic breathing room or a residual nuclear capability. Iranian officials therefore have an obvious reason to argue that the diplomatic track was undermined by Israeli pressure rather than by Iran’s own negotiating limits. It is also possible that Tehran is trying to shift blame outward to preserve domestic political standing after entering headline-level talks with Washington and leaving empty-handed.
For Washington, the messaging has been starkly different. Vance has publicly framed the failure as the result of Iranian unwillingness to abandon a nuclear weapons path, while Trump has oscillated between claiming military success and signalling that the United States can escalate pressure further. After the talks collapsed, the administration moved towards harsher maritime steps against Iran, a sign that diplomacy has not displaced coercion as the main instrument of policy. That reaction also undercuts the idea that an agreement was all but sealed before being knocked off course in a single exchange.
China redraws a sensitive frontier 