ED No deal, no time

U.S. Vice President JD Vance, left, speaks with Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, center, and Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar, right, before boarding Air Force Two after peace talks with Iran in Islamabad, Sunday. Yonhap

The collapse of peacemaking efforts after a marathon 21 hours of talks in Islamabad between the United States and Iran is a sobering reminder of how fragile the path to peace remains. Despite the significance of the meeting — the first high-level, face-to-face engagement between the two sides in nearly half a century — the negotiations ended without an agreement. What had been cautiously viewed as a potential turning point has instead deepened uncertainty.

At the heart of the deadlock lies a familiar but formidable divide: Washington insists on an explicit and verifiable commitment from Tehran to abandon not only its nuclear weapons ambitions but also any capability to quickly develop such weapons. For the United States, this is a nonnegotiable red line, central to both its security doctrine and the justification for its recent military actions. Iran, however, views such demands as an infringement on its sovereignty and strategic autonomy. The dispute over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz has only compounded tensions, with each side unwilling to yield ground on an issue of immense geopolitical and economic significance.

Yet a continuation — or worse, an escalation — of the conflict would serve nobody. The consequences would be far-reaching and severe. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy transit chokepoints, through which a significant portion of global oil supplies passes. Any prolonged disruption would trigger a sharp surge in oil prices, reigniting inflationary pressures at a time when the global economy remains vulnerable. Supply chains, already strained by years of disruption, could face renewed breakdowns, amplifying the economic shock across continents.

In this precarious situation, the role of external actors has further complicated prospects for peace. Israel’s recent military actions risk undermining the already fragile ceasefire efforts. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard-line posture, while framed as a matter of national security, increasingly appears entangled with domestic political calculations. Facing mounting legal and political challenges at home, Netanyahu has strong incentives to project strength abroad. However, leveraging international conflict as a means of domestic political survival is a perilous strategy that risks holding the global economy and regional stability hostage.

Such actions do little to advance the cause of peace. On the contrary, they harden positions, inflame tensions and make compromise more elusive. If a durable resolution is to be achieved, all parties with influence over the conflict must act responsibly and in good faith. This includes not only the primary belligerents but also regional stakeholders whose actions can either facilitate or frustrate diplomatic progress.

Ultimately, however, the responsibility rests most heavily with Washington and Tehran. The current approach, with each side presenting “final” offers while waiting for the other to capitulate, risks prolonging the stalemate. What is needed instead is pragmatic flexibility. History shows that even the most entrenched conflicts can yield to incremental, carefully structured compromises. On the nuclear issue, a phased approach combining verifiable limits with calibrated sanctions relief could offer a viable pathway forward. Similarly, the dispute over the Strait of Hormuz might be addressed through conditional reopening mechanisms under international monitoring, balancing security concerns with economic necessity.

The window for such diplomacy, however, is narrow. With only a temporary ceasefire in place, time is not on the side of de-escalation. Without meaningful progress, the risk of renewed hostilities will grow, and the consequences may extend far beyond the immediate region.

For countries like Korea, the stakes are particularly high. As a major energy importer deeply integrated into global trade networks, it is acutely vulnerable to disruptions in oil supplies and shipping routes. Preparing for worst-case scenarios is not optional but imperative. This means strengthening energy diversification strategies, expanding strategic reserves and securing alternative logistics pathways to mitigate potential shocks.

The world now stands at a critical juncture. The choice is stark: A return to conflict with cascading global repercussions, or a difficult but necessary compromise that paves the way for lasting peace. The outcome will not only shape the future of U.S.-Iran relations but also the stability of the global economy. Leadership, restraint and a willingness to yield, however modestly, will determine which path is taken.