ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – More than 12 hours of face-to-face talks between the United States and Iran ended without a deal in Islamabad on Sunday, leaving a fragile two-week ceasefire that was the only barrier between diplomacy and a return to war.
Pakistan spent weeks positioning itself as a mediator, successfully getting both sides in the same room, and emerged in that role intact. But officials acknowledged that the more difficult step of getting U.S. and Iranian negotiators back into talks before their differences escalate into another full-blown war has begun.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“Pakistan has and will continue to play its role in facilitating engagement and dialogue between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States,” Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said in a statement after the meeting.
The talks were the highest level of direct dialogue between the U.S. and Iranian governments since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but stalled over disagreements over Iran’s nuclear program.
“The simple fact is that we need to see a positive commitment that they don’t want nuclear weapons and they don’t want the means to quickly get nuclear weapons,” said Vice President J.D. Vance, who led the U.S. delegation along with special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
However, Vance left a small leeway for negotiations to resume.
“We leave here with a very simple proposal. That’s our final and best proposal. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” Vance said, patting the stage as he finished his brief remarks, which lasted less than five minutes.
Pakistani and Iranian sources confirmed that an Iranian delegation met with senior Pakistani officials before leaving for Tehran late Sunday, but details of those talks remain unclear.
What is clear is that Pakistan has not given up yet.
washington red line
U.S. officials said Iran entered the negotiations misreading its influence, believing it had an advantage, even though that was not the case in the U.S. government’s assessment.
Vance spent much of the meeting correcting what he called Iranian misunderstandings about the U.S. position, the officials said, and argued that no deal was possible without a full commitment to the nuclear issue.
Officials also suggested that President Trump’s subsequent announcement to close the Strait of Hormuz was not an impulsive reaction, but a pre-planned move aimed at clearing the waterway as a negotiating tool for Iran and putting the nuclear issue back at the center of future talks.
But given the context, U.S. officials also acknowledged that the unbridgeable gap in positions between the U.S. and Tehran extends beyond Iran’s nuclear program.
Essentially, they said, the two countries could not agree on six key points. Demolish major enrichment facilities. Remove Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile. Embrace a broader regional security framework that involves U.S. allies. End funding to groups designated by the U.S. government as “terrorist” organizations, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. and fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz without tolls.
Hours after the talks ended, President Trump acknowledged some progress but emphasized the central impasse.
“The meeting went well and there was agreement on most things, but there was no agreement on the one thing that really mattered: nuclear,” he wrote on Truth Social.
“Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the world’s greatest navy, will begin the process of blockading any ships attempting to enter or exit the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump said. “Iran cannot be allowed to profit from this illegal act of extortion.”
Since the U.S. and Israeli attacks began on February 28, Iran has effectively controlled access to the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supplies pass.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has imposed what analysts call a de facto toll system, requiring ships to secure a customs code and sail under escort through controlled corridors.
The disruption has sent oil prices above $100 per barrel at one point, roiling global markets and putting sustained pressure on energy importing countries across Asia and Europe.
Tehran has positioned control of the strait as both a security measure and a key negotiating tool, and has shown little appetite to relinquish it without a broader settlement.
Tehran’s perspective
Iran’s explanation for the breakdown differed widely.
After returning to Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a post on X early on April 13 that his country had been working “in good faith,” only to be faced with changing demands.
“Within inches from the Islamabad memorandum, we encountered extremism, moving goalposts, and blockades,” he wrote. “There are zero lessons learned. Goodwill begets goodwill. Hostility begets hostility.”
The reference to a memorandum of understanding, the Islamabad Memorandum, was the clearest public signal yet that the two countries were closer to a formal agreement than either government had previously acknowledged.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the delegation, said his team had proposed “positive initiatives” but had failed to secure trust.
“The experience of the past two wars has made us no longer trust the other side,” he wrote on Sunday.
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Esmail Bagay also pointed out some unresolved differences, although some progress has been made.
“While we did indeed reach mutual understanding on some issues, there were differences of opinion on a few key issues, and ultimately the talks did not result in an agreement,” he said.
Tehran’s key demands were not met, including an end to Israeli attacks on Lebanon, the release of $6 billion in frozen assets, guarantees for its nuclear program, and the right to charge ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
But Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghaddam, took a more sober view, suggesting Tehran was not closing the window for negotiations.
“The Islamabad talks are a process, not an event,” he wrote in a message on Sunday’s X. “The Islamabad talks laid the foundation for a diplomatic process that, once trust and will are strengthened, can create a sustainable framework for the benefit of all parties.”
Pakistan’s rebalancing measures
Analysts say the outcome is a setback for Pakistan, but not a failure.
Officials were careful to describe the talks as “an important first step in an ongoing diplomatic process” and stressed that such complex issues cannot be resolved in one round.
They said they focused on keeping channels open.
Muhammad Obaidullah, a former Pakistan Navy brigadier general and diplomat who served in Iran, said hopes for a resolution were always unrealistic.
“The mere fact of bringing the two sides face to face is an important diplomatic achievement in itself,” he told Al Jazeera. “Diplomacy is not over.”
Ishtiaq Ahmad, professor emeritus of international relations at Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam University, went further.
“Negotiations did not break down. They ended without an agreement, but with a clear U.S. proposal on the table and the channel intact,” he said.
“Pakistan’s role was to move the crisis from escalation to structural engagement, and Pakistan has achieved that. The lack of closure reflects structural differences between the United States and Iran, not a failure of mediation.”
Both President Trump and Iranian officials praised Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief of Staff General Asim Munir for their efforts to secure a ceasefire and for hosting the talks in Islamabad. Analysts say this suggests there is room for further negotiations brokered by Pakistan.
Sahar Baloch, a Germany-based Iran researcher, said trust remains Pakistan’s most valuable asset.
“The true test of reliability is not in preventing failure, but in remaining relevant after failure,” she said.
fragile ceasefire
An immediate threat to Pakistan’s role comes from developments in the Strait of Hormuz and Lebanon.
Iran has already warned that continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon could render negotiations meaningless. Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian called the attacks a direct challenge to the ceasefire.
President Trump’s declaration of a lockdown added pressure from a second front.
Ahmad, a former Pakistan professor at Oxford University, warned that the collapse of the ceasefire would sharply narrow diplomatic options.
“If the ceasefire breaks down, we will immediately lose our diplomatic window,” he said. “The second round will be much more difficult, as both sides will return to negotiations under aggressive escalation conditions, where positions tend to harden rather than converge.”
Obaidullah drew historical parallels to the U.S. naval quarantine of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis. What would happen if China used its own ships to import Iranian oil? Will the US attack them?
“The world will once again be watching to see who blinks first,” Obaidullah said. “But if neither side responds, it could lead to a larger conflict.”
The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 brought the United States and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war after Washington discovered that Russia had placed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil within range of the American mainland.
The United States blocked the Soviet Union from providing further equipment to Cuba, but eventually a diplomatic solution was reached, with the Soviet Union agreeing to remove its missiles in exchange for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba.
Berlin-based academic Baloch agreed that the situation remains unstable.
“There is a risk that the ceasefire will be more symbolic than substantive,” she said. “Paradoxically, however, escalation may force a return to negotiations, even under more urgent and unfavorable conditions.”
What is the path forward?
Pakistan’s strategic space is also shaped by its economic vulnerability.
The turmoil in the Strait of Hormuz has sent energy prices soaring, adding to pressure on an economy already under stress before the conflict.
Mr Ahmad said this creates both urgency and limitations.
“Energy shocks and economic exposure, especially from external financing, create an urgency for Pakistan to prevent a protracted conflict,” he said.
“But it also strengthens constraints. Pakistan cannot afford escalation with either side. Its influence is not coercive, but positional. It comes not from the ability to impose results, but from being the only means acceptable to both sides,” Ahmad said.
With eight days left until the end of the original two-week ceasefire, Pakistani officials have said privately that this period represents a real opportunity for further technical and political cooperation if both sides choose to take advantage of it.
Mr. Ahmad suggested that a breakthrough depends on creating a set of steps that are acceptable to both sides.
“The United States wants an early commitment to develop a nuclear program, and Iran wants guarantees and relief first,” he said.
Pakistan’s role is to help “build this order, keep both sides engaged and prevent breakdowns at each stage,” he added.
Islamabad itself will not draft the agreement, he stressed, noting that “at this point, maintaining the channel is as important as the content of the agreement itself.”
