Oslo vs Islamabad: X user's US-Iran peace talks post sparks online debate

On Sunday, US Vice President JD Vance came in front of the media after 21-hour-long marathon negotiations and announced that both Iran and the United States failed to reach a deal. The talks held in Islamabad, Pakistan, were aimed at ending the war that has been raging on in West Asia for the past six weeks.

Vance cited shortcomings in the talks, saying that Iran had chosen not to accept American terms, including not to build nuclear weapons. “The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,” Vance said. “So we go back to the United States, having not agreed. We’ve made very clear what our red lines are," he added.

More from World

Meanwhile, Iran's foreign ministry also released a statement confirming the news and insisted that the two sides continue to disagree on the two to three points of contention. The failure of what was commonly dubbed the "Islamabad Talks" also dealt a major blow to Pakistan's position as the mediator.

In a run-up to the talks, Pakistan attempted to "rebrand itself" and elevate its global standing by mediating the ravaging war that has rocked West Asia. Pakistan was in a comfortable position to mediate since it has strong ties with the United States under President Donald Trump, and it borders Iran. Hence, stability in Tehran was also instrumental for Pakistan's own security amid Islamabad's growing animosities with New Delhi and Kabul.

Right after both nations agreed to arrive in Islamabad for negotiations, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir were painted as key players. Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) went ahead to ask Nobel organisers to award Sharif and Munir a Nobel Peace Prize.

Even before the talks ended in a stalemate, a user on X compared the Islamabad talks and Norway's Oslo Accord between Israel and Palestine. However, many pointed out that the parallels cannot be drawn between the two events.

What the X user said

While sharing his personal views, a Twitter user compared the Islamabad talks with the Norway-hosting negotiations for the 1993 Oslo Accord. He pointed out how Norway kept the talks between the Israeli and Palestinian delegations under wraps, and no media were allowed to cover it.

The X user noted that the talks were kept secret and conducted through backchannels. He also pointed out how the Colombian peace process, also launched in Oslo and then moved to Havana, followed the same level of secrecy.

In contrast to this, the Twitter user noted how Islamabad promoted the fact that it was the mediator in the ongoing Iran-US war. "Now look at Islamabad today. Digital billboards across the city are branding it "The Islamabad Talks" with Pakistani, American, and Iranian flags side by side. A five-star hotel cleared of guests. Two-day public holiday declared. Streets emptied by security lockdown. Pavements literally being painted," the X user wrote in the post.

"This is not mediation. This is a state throwing itself a party for being invited to host one. Every billboard, every painted curb, every flag display says: "Look at us." Norway's entire philosophy said: "Don't look at us. Look at each other," he added.

What happened in Norway in 1993

Norway didn't appear randomly to mediate the Israel-Palestine issue. For decades, the Nordic nations had decades-long informal ties with the actors in West Asia. Norwegian politicians and officials had a strong relationship with Israel, and at the same time, they engaged with the PLO. This gave Norway access to both sides, which many nations don't have.

After the formal negotiations in Washington reached a deadlock, Israeli and Palestinian actors were looking for alternative channels. Norway stepped in to create a “back channel” when official diplomacy failed. Since the country was politically independent and free from any form of heavy geopolitical baggage, Norway turned out to be a strong mediator.

The most crucial feature of the 1993 talks was the fact that they were conducted in complete secrecy. Even many officials were unaware initially. The negotiations began in 1992 as informal, hidden meetings in Oslo. No media involvement and the secrecy helped both sides to bypass political pressure and public posturing.

Interestingly, the Norwegian institute Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research hosted the talks. This way, the meetings could be disguised as academic activity or research collaboration and not a leaders' summit. The final agreement was initialled secretly in Oslo during what appeared to be a routine diplomatic visit.

How Norway was different from Islamabad

While the Oslo model was Quiet, secret and focused on relationship-first diplomacy. The Islamabad talks were high-stakes, visible and focused on crisis-driven diplomacy. The negotiations in Norway started as an informal backchannel and gradually evolved into an official agreement.

The talks in Islamabad, on the other hand, began as high-level formal talks from day one. It was structured around defined agendas such as the issue of the Strait of Hormuz, Lebanon, etc. Another crucial difference between the two was the fact that the talks took place amid a long-drawn-out conflict, but there was no active full-scale war at that time, which helped with the secrecy.

Meanwhile, the US-Israel war in Iran has been escalating for the past six weeks, and no matter how hard all the sides attempt to downplay the talks, the world was watching it closely.

Reactions to the post

The reaction to the Twitter user's post was mixed. While some supported the X user's take, others pointed out how both the summits were different from each other and cannot be compared.

"Pakistan is not doing this for peace; they're just trying to whitewash their image as a global terrorism hub," a X user commented. "A very insightful analysis," another exclaimed.

However, there were some who pointed out the differences between the two sides. "Come on, even the President of the USA kept boasting about brokering peace between India and Pakistan and many other wars. Pakistan is a third-world country; it doesn't matter to them if talks of this level are being held there," one user wrote. "Why would you even want to make comparisons? Every conflict is different - so are mediators," another commented.