Islamabad, Pakistan – Over 12 hours of direct negotiations between the United States and Iran concluded in Islamabad on Sunday without reaching an agreement. This outcome leaves a delicate two-week ceasefire as the sole buffer preventing a relapse into conflict from diplomacy.
Pakistan, after weeks of positioning itself as a mediator and successfully bringing both parties to the negotiating table, has maintained its pivotal role. However, officials recognize that the more challenging phase is now underway: persuading American and Iranian negotiators to resume discussions before their disagreements escalate into a full-scale war once more.
Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, stated after the talks concluded, “Pakistan has been and will continue to play its role in facilitating engagements and dialogue between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America in the days to come.”
These discussions, marking the highest-level direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, stalled due to disagreements concerning Iran’s nuclear program.
US Vice President JD Vance, who led the American delegation alongside special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, stated, “The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon.”
Nevertheless, Vance indicated a slim possibility for the resumption of negotiations.
Vance concluded his brief remarks, which lasted under five minutes, by stating, “We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” while tapping the podium for emphasis.
Both Pakistani and Iranian sources confirmed that the Iranian delegation met with senior Pakistani officials later on Sunday before returning to Tehran, although the specifics of these discussions have not been disclosed.
What remains evident is Pakistan’s continued commitment to the process.
Washington’s Red Lines
US officials indicated that Iran had entered the negotiations misjudging its leverage, under the impression it possessed advantages that, according to Washington’s assessment, it did not.
These officials further stated that Vance dedicated a significant portion of the talks to correcting what they termed Iranian ‘misperceptions’ regarding the US stance, emphasizing that no agreement could be reached without a complete commitment on the nuclear issue.
Officials also suggested that Trump’s subsequent announcement of a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz was not an impulsive reaction but a pre-planned move designed to neutralize the waterway as an Iranian bargaining chip and re-center the nuclear issue in any future discussions.
However, US officials, speaking anonymously, conceded that the significant divergence in positions between Washington and Tehran, which they failed to reconcile, encompassed issues beyond Iran’s nuclear program.
Essentially, they reported that the two sides could not agree on six crucial points: halting all uranium enrichment; dismantling major enrichment facilities; removing Iran’s reserves of highly enriched uranium; accepting a broader regional security framework that includes US allies; ceasing financial support for groups Washington labels as ‘terrorist’ organizations, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis; and fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz without imposing tolls.
Hours after the talks concluded, Trump acknowledged some progress but highlighted the core deadlock.
On Truth Social, he wrote, “The meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not.”
Trump declared, “Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz. Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION.”
Iran has effectively controlled access to the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which approximately 20 percent of global oil supplies transit, since the US-Israeli attacks commenced on February 28.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has implemented what analysts describe as a de facto toll system, mandating vessels to obtain clearance codes and proceed under escort through a designated corridor.
This disruption has, at times, driven oil prices above $100 per barrel, unsettling global markets and exerting continuous pressure on energy-importing nations across Asia and Europe.
Tehran has presented its control of the strait as both a security measure and a crucial negotiating tool, showing little inclination to surrender it without a comprehensive settlement.
Tehran’s Perspective
Iran’s version of the breakdown in talks sharply contrasted with the US account.
Upon returning to Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated in an early April 13 post on X that his country had engaged in “good faith,” only to be met with shifting demands.
He wrote, “When just inches away from an Islamabad MoU, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade. Zero lessons learned. Good will begets good will. Enmity begets enmity.”
The mention of an ‘Islamabad MoU’ (Memorandum of Understanding) was the clearest public indication to date that both sides had approached a formal agreement more closely than either government had previously admitted.
Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who headed the country’s delegation, stated that his team had proposed “forward-looking initiatives” but failed to build trust.
He wrote on Sunday, “Due to the experiences of the two previous wars, we have no trust in the opposing side.”
Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also noted partial progress but highlighted unresolved differences.
He said, “On some issues we actually reached mutual understanding, but there was a gap over two or three important issues and ultimately the talks didn’t result in an agreement.”
Tehran’s primary demands, which included an end to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, the release of $6 billion in frozen assets, guarantees regarding its nuclear program, and the right to levy charges on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, were not met.
However, Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, offered a more tempered perspective, suggesting that Tehran was not closing the door on further discussions.
In a message on X on Sunday, he wrote, “The Islamabad Talks is not an event but a process. The Islamabad Talks laid the foundation for a diplomatic process that, if trust and will are strengthened, can create a sustainable framework for the interests of all parties.”
Pakistan’s Balancing Act
For Pakistan, analysts suggest, the outcome represents a setback rather than a failure.
Officials were careful to characterize the talks as “an important opening step in a continuing diplomatic process,” emphasizing that issues of such complexity cannot be resolved in a single round.
The emphasis, they stated, was on maintaining open communication channels.
Muhammad Obaidullah, a former Pakistan Navy commodore and diplomat who served in Iran, commented that expectations of a breakthrough were always unrealistic.
He told Al Jazeera, “The mere fact of bringing both parties face to face is a significant diplomatic achievement in itself. The diplomacy is not dead.”
Ishtiaq Ahmad, professor emeritus of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, elaborated further.
He stated, “The talks did not collapse; they concluded without agreement but with a defined US offer on the table and the channel still intact.”
He added, “Pakistan’s role was to move the crisis from escalation to structured engagement, which it achieved. The absence of convergence reflects structural differences between the US and Iran, not a failure of mediation.”
Both Trump and Iranian officials have commended Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir for their efforts in securing the ceasefire and hosting the talks in Islamabad. Analysts suggest this indicates their openness to further Pakistan-brokered negotiations.
Sahar Baloch, a Germany-based scholar specializing in Iran, noted that trust remains Pakistan’s most valuable asset.
She remarked, “The real test of credibility is not preventing breakdowns, but remaining relevant after them.”
Fragile Ceasefire
The immediate challenge to Pakistan’s mediating role stems from the evolving situations in the Strait of Hormuz and Lebanon.
Iran has already cautioned that ongoing Israeli strikes on Lebanon could render negotiations futile. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has characterized such attacks as a direct challenge to the ceasefire.
Trump’s announcement of a blockade now introduces pressure from a second front.
Ahmad, a former Pakistan chair at Oxford University, warned that a collapse of the truce would severely limit diplomatic options.
He stated, “If the ceasefire collapses, the immediate consequence is the loss of the diplomatic window. A second round becomes far more difficult because both sides would return to negotiating under active escalation, where positions tend to harden rather than converge.”
Obaidullah drew a historical parallel to the US naval quarantine of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis, posing the question: What if China were to use its own ships to import Iranian oil? Would the US attack them?
Obaidullah commented, “The world will again be watching who blinks first. However, it may turn into a far greater conflict if neither side does.”
The Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 brought the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war after Washington discovered Moscow had installed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil, within striking distance of the American mainland.
The US blocked the Soviets from supplying more equipment to Cuba, eventually leading to a diplomatic settlement where the Soviets agreed to withdraw the missiles in exchange for a US pledge not to invade Cuba.
Baloch, the Berlin-based scholar, concurred that the situation remains volatile.
She observed, “The ceasefire risks becoming more symbolic than substantive. But paradoxically, escalation can sometimes force a return to talks, even if under more urgent and less favourable conditions.”
The Road Ahead
Pakistan’s diplomatic maneuvering space is also constrained by its economic fragility.
The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has escalated energy prices, intensifying existing pressures on an economy already struggling before the conflict.
Ahmad noted that this situation creates both urgency and limitations.
He stated, “Economic exposure, especially to energy shocks and external financing, creates urgency for Pakistan to prevent a prolonged conflict.”
Ahmad added, “But it also reinforces a constraint: Pakistan cannot afford escalation with either side. Its leverage is not coercive; it is positional. It comes from being the only channel acceptable to both sides, not from the ability to impose outcomes.”
Eight days remain until the initial two-week truce concludes, a period Pakistani officials privately describe as a genuine opportunity for further technical and political alignment, should both sides choose to utilize it.
Ahmad suggested that any breakthrough would hinge on establishing a sequence of steps acceptable to both parties.
He said, “The US is asking for early nuclear commitments; Iran is asking for guarantees and relief first.”
Pakistan’s role, he added, would be to help “structure this sequencing, keep both sides engaged, and prevent breakdown at each stage.”
He emphasized that Islamabad would not be drafting the deal itself, noting, “At this point, maintaining the channel is as important as the substance of the deal itself.”
#PakistanDiplomacy #USIranTalks #NuclearDeal #StraitOfHormuz #MiddleEastConflict #Ceasefire #InternationalRelations #MediationEfforts #GlobalSecurity #EnergyCrisis
Leave a Reply