US-Iran talks end without a deal. What now?

A high-level round of talks between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme has ended without agreement, leaving Washington to choose between prolonged negotiations or the risk of renewed conflict, reports The New York Times.

US Vice President JD Vance held more than 20 hours of discussions with Iranian officials but failed to secure concessions on Washington's key demand that Iran permanently dismantle its nuclear programme. 

According to The New York Times, Vance presented a "take-it-or-leave-it" proposal, which Iran rejected.

"We've made very clear what our red lines are," Vance said after the talks. "They have chosen not to accept our terms."

White House officials said the next course of action would be decided by President Donald Trump.

The outcome reflects a long-standing divide between the two sides.

Iran has previously indicated willingness to suspend parts of its nuclear activities for a limited period but has refused to give up its stockpile of enriched uranium or its ability to enrich uranium domestically, which it considers a sovereign right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, according to The New York Times.

The United States, however, views that position as evidence that Iran seeks to retain the capacity to develop nuclear weapons if it chooses.

A similar impasse earlier this year led to 38 days of US missile and air strikes targeting Iranian military bases, missile stockpiles and industrial facilities.

Despite the scale of the attacks, The New York Times reports that Iran's position appears to have hardened.

In a statement issued during the talks, Iran's foreign ministry said the losses suffered had strengthened its resolve to defend national interests and rights.

The failure of the talks leaves Washington with difficult choices, according to The New York Times.

One option is to enter a longer negotiation process, similar to the deal reached during the Obama administration, which took nearly two years and involved multiple compromises, including allowing Iran to retain limited nuclear capacity.

Another option is the resumption of military action, although that carries significant risks. The recent conflict disrupted global energy markets, affecting roughly 20% of global oil supplies and driving up fuel prices.

Markets stabilised after a temporary ceasefire was announced, but analysts warn that renewed hostilities could trigger further supply disruptions, higher inflation and broader economic instability.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route, has emerged as a central issue in the dispute.

Iran has linked the reopening of the strait to a wider set of demands, including compensation for damage caused by US strikes and the lifting of long-standing sanctions, according to The New York Times.

The United States has rejected calls for compensation and said sanctions relief would only be considered gradually and in exchange for verifiable steps by Iran.

The current ceasefire is due to expire on 21 April, adding urgency to diplomatic efforts.

The talks suggest that both sides believe they hold the upper hand. The US points to the scale of its military campaign, while Iran sees its ability to withstand the attacks as a demonstration of resilience, reports The New York Times.

With neither side showing willingness to make major concessions, the prospect of a quick resolution appears unlikely, leaving the situation uncertain in the coming days.