【What questions will the Iranians ask Vance in the second round of talks?】 It now appears that the U.S. and Iran may soon clash again in Islamabad, possibly as early as this weekend.
Nations including Turkey, Egypt, and even Geneva, Switzerland, are actively arranging to host the talks.
These are all positive signs. What no one is saying outright is that the primary purpose behind actively scheduling the second round is at least to maintain a ceasefire, buy more time to extend the ceasefire duration, and create a window for alleviating supply chain pressures.
From fighting while negotiating, to minor skirmishes with major talks, to ultimately talking without fighting—toward the ultimate goal of achieving a ceasefire.
Regardless of whether the lead negotiators change, this round will certainly not be a repeat of the first.
In the first round, when Iran met Vance, it was a classic case of enemies meeting face to face.
Vance was the person sitting in the White House Situation Room on the day U.S. forces launched missiles to assassinate Khamenei, witnessing the final moments of Iran’s Supreme Leader firsthand. That seat is normally occupied by the President.
Trump personally ordered the terrorist attack that day from Mar-a-Lago.
So I don’t believe Iranians can sit down with Vance under the same roof without psychological preparation.
That said, after the first round, the Iranians have already seen through Vance’s true weight.
The Americans have also learned that Iran is definitely no pushover. But they must still keep up appearances and sound tough.
This sets the foundation for more substantive negotiations in the second round.
The first round wasn't entirely fruitless—seeing each other clearly has significant value for both sides.
Vance said there's a lot of mistrust between the two countries, and problems cannot be resolved overnight.
As long as people within the Trump Organization continue spreading various statements, that’s a good sign—it shows willingness to negotiate.
After all, negotiation is a complex game involving psychology, public opinion, deception, military strategy, cognitive warfare, and multiple factors.
If there were absolutely no desire to negotiate, they wouldn’t even pick up the ball—they’d just resort to war, using force to settle things. That’s not called “negotiation.”
In the second round, Iranians should probably ask the U.S. side: exactly who does Vance represent?
Does he represent Trump? Netanyahu? Or the "Epstein Network"?
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1862510779781132/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.