DID Press: Results from a new survey conducted by DID News Agency indicate that, in the view of respondents, two factors—“U.S. compliance with Iran’s conditions” and “Iran’s regional deterrence power and influence”—are considered the most decisive elements in determining the success or failure of negotiations between Iran and the United States in Islamabad. In contrast, the role of mediation by Pakistan received the lowest weight in public assessments.
According to the survey data examining factors shaping the outcome of the Iran–U.S. talks in Islamabad, public opinion appears primarily focused on Iran’s demands and capabilities. The poll evaluated four main indicators, with results offering a clear snapshot of societal perceptions regarding the negotiation process.
Under the findings, “U.S. compliance with Iran’s specified conditions” ranked first among influencing factors at 37 percent. This figure suggests that a significant portion of respondents believe the success of negotiations depends on Washington accepting Tehran’s demands—positions that have been framed in recent months as key red lines and central points of disagreement between the two sides.
In second place, “Iran’s regional deterrence power and influence” also received 37 percent, matching the top ranking. This parity indicates that public opinion views Iran’s operational capabilities and regional standing not only as strengthening the position of Iranian negotiators but also as a decisive factor shaping the behavior of the United States.
By comparison, “reduced U.S. capacity to exert pressure on Iran” ranked third with 25 percent. This assessment suggests that some respondents consider shifts in the balance of power and perceived constraints on Washington’s use of pressure tools as relevant to the negotiation process, although not as decisive as the first two factors.
The lowest share in the survey—zero percent—was attributed to “Pakistan’s accurate transmission of Iran’s demands.” This outcome indicates that respondents view Pakistan’s mediation role as significantly less important compared with factors tied directly to power dynamics and policy positions of the principal negotiating parties. In other words, public opinion assigns primary weight to the actions and capabilities of the two main sides while perceiving the intermediary role as marginal.
Overall, the data suggest that public perceptions of the Islamabad negotiations are shaped chiefly by themes of power, deterrence, and Iran’s strategic red lines. From the respondents’ perspective, any progress or breakdown in talks is seen as directly dependent on the degree of flexibility—or lack thereof—demonstrated by the United States in relation to these elements.