The diplomatic roller coaster between the United States and Iran took another several lurches on Tuesday.
Talks that had been expected to take place in Islamabad were pitched into new doubt. The ceasefire was extended, but so, too, was the American blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.
Late on Tuesday afternoon, President Trump agreed to prolong the cessation.
The president contended he was doing so because the Iranian government is "seriously fractured." Trump said the pause would remain in place "until such time as their proposal is submitted."
The extension could clear the way for talks after it appeared uncertain whether Vice President Vance would even travel to the Pakistani city to lead the American negotiating team.
The Iranians were also hesitating about sending their delegation.
A spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry told state TV in the hours before Trump's announcement that this was not evidence of "indecisiveness" but because "we are facing ... unacceptable actions from the American counterpart," The Associated Press reported.
There is a bigger question of if and when talks take place.
Can the United States walk away with a better deal with the Iranians than the one struck under then-President Obama more than a decade ago?
Characteristically, Trump is adamant that the answer is yes.
"The DEAL that we are making with Iran will be FAR BETTER than the JCPOA, commonly referred to as 'The Iran Nuclear Deal,'" Trump wrote on social media on Monday. He further lambasted the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as "one of the Worst Deals ever made."
Any deal made under him, by contrast, would be "something that the entire World will be proud of," the president insisted.
Foreign policy analysts warn that it is much easier said than done however.
The skeptics cite sky-high levels of distrust between Tehran and Washington. Senior figures within the Islamic Republic's leadership often highlight how they have twice been attacked amid negotiations.
There is also the inherent complexity of the task ahead. The negotiations that led to the JCPOA took place over almost two years and involved hundreds of experts poring over the details of nuclear technology, sanctions and international banking.
The Obama-era agreement was dizzyingly complicated in its specifics but simple in its contours. Iran agreed to serious restrictions on its nuclear program, and to allow access to international inspectors, in return for sanctions relief.
The death knell for the deal came in 2018, during Trump's first term, when he withdrew the U.S. from it.
Trump and Vance appear to be hoping that they can agree to something more beneficial to American interests in a fraction of the time taken for the Obama-era deal.
But skeptics note that some of the circumstances are very different. The JCPOA capped the level of uranium enrichment for Iran beneath 4 percent, for example, and Iran agreed to reduce its stockpile of the substance by 98 percent.
Now, Iran has a tranche of uranium enriched to 60 percent -- far closer to 90 percent "weapons-grade" level.
"It is very difficult to see how the Trump administration is going to be able to secure anything better than the JCPOA simply because we are starting from a place much further back," said Allison McManus, the managing director for national security and international policy with the liberal Center for American Progress.
McManus cited the higher levels of uranium enrichment and noted that the change brings Iran "so much closer to a break-out time" for a nuclear weapon.
Iran's leadership has consistently denied that it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but those denials are disbelieved in the U.S., Israel and most of Europe.
From the pro-Trump perspective, the calculus is straightforward: Iran has suffered major damage from weeks of U.S. and Israeli airstrikes, needs money to rebuild and is having its revenues choked off by a combination of sanctions and the U.S. blockade of vessels traveling to and from Iranian ports.
The pro-Trump side also notes that Iran is apparently willing to suspend its nuclear program entirely for five years. It curtailed that program; but did not freeze it entirely; under the JCPOA.
But there is a flip side.
The Islamic Republic has withstood weeks of American and Israeli attacks without it ever appearing as if the ruling theocracy's grip on power has been seriously threatened.
Its capacity to largely choke off traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has been its strongest strategic card by far. The longer Iran exerts that leverage, the worse the pain is likely to get for Trump -- especially with midterm elections looming.
None of that suggests the Iranians are about to make painful concessions unless they also extract significant benefits.
Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian Parliament who spearheaded the Islamic Republic's negotiating team in Islamabad, wrote on social media on Monday that Trump was mistaken in trying "to turn this negotiating table -- in his own imagination -- into a table of surrender."
"We do not accept negotiations under the shadow of threats, and in the past two weeks, we have prepared to reveal new cards on the battlefield," Qalibaf warned.
It is possible that the Trump administration could use a vague agreement on some matter not covered by the JCPOA to claim a victory this time around -- perhaps a concession from Iran on ballistic missiles or on support of proxy groups in the region.
But critics worry that Tehran could just as easily believe it has the upper hand -- and move in the exact opposite direction from the one U.S. wants.
They fear Iranians could decide they need to hurry along nuclear path in order to discourage future attacks.
"I am very concerned that the lesson the Iranian regime gains coming out of this is that they need to invest in military deterrence -- and that actually a nuclear weapon would be the best deterrent they can pursue," said McManus.