To move from a fragile ceasefire toward a more durable peace, Washington will need to abandon the contradictory approach of negotiating while simultaneously escalating pressure. What is required instead is consistency, restraint and a genuine commitment to rebuilding trust, without which the prospects for lasting stability will be dim.

BEIJING, April 13 (Xinhua) -- The unsuccessful peace talks between the United States and Iran in Islamabad were followed not by restraint, but by escalation: Washington's swift announcement of a naval blockade on all maritime traffic entering and leaving Iranian ports.

Coming on the heels of a failed diplomatic effort, the move risks undermining what little momentum for dialogue remained and signals a troubling readiness by Washington to revert to coercion and military means over meaningful negotiation.

The breakdown of the talks was hardly unexpected. The divide between Washington and Tehran is vast, rooted in decades of antagonism, longstanding differences, and deep-seated mistrust. No single meeting was ever likely to resolve such fundamental differences or yield a meaningful consensus. But a lack of immediate progress should not be taken as justification for coercion. Attempts to force concessions are far more likely to harden positions than to bridge gaps.

Threats of military action, particularly during a ceasefire, risk deepening distrust, reinforcing hardline position, and reducing the space for meaningful dialogue. Reports that U.S. President Donald Trump is considering resuming limited strikes on Iran, if carried out, would only further escalate the crisis.

Given the depth of mistrust, coercive measures are unlikely to achieve meaningful results. Instead, they reinforce the very skepticism that has long defined the relationship, further dimming already fragile prospects for negotiation.

In addition to the rising human toll across the region, the global community also continues to face the fallout of the war. Weeks of military confrontations have already disrupted global energy markets. At the same time, opportunities for diplomatic breakthroughs, achieved through patient mediation by several countries, risk being squandered.

Diplomacy, not intimidation, remains the only viable path forward. As Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, who led the Iranian delegation in the talks, emphasized, the only way for the United States to find an exit from the current situation is to earn the Iranian nation's trust.

To move from a fragile ceasefire toward a more durable peace, Washington will need to abandon the contradictory approach of negotiating while simultaneously escalating pressure. What is required instead is consistency, restraint and a genuine commitment to rebuilding trust, without which the prospects for lasting stability will be dim.