The United States is sending its negotiators to Islamabad in an effort to revive dialogue with Iran, but Tehran has already made its position clear: there will be no direct contact with the American delegation, and any interaction will take place exclusively through intermediaries, primarily Pakistan.

The US side will be represented by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, acting on behalf of Donald Trump’s administration. Iran, for its part, has already dispatched Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to Pakistan, though his mission is largely consultative: he intends to discuss the parameters of a potential settlement with mediators and partners, including during subsequent visits to Oman and Russia.

The central intrigue of the process lies in the fact that while the parties formally remain in contact, they are effectively avoiding direct dialogue. Iran emphasizes that it sees no conditions for face-to-face talks with the United States, accusing Washington of violating previous agreements and pursuing “maximalist demands”. The US, in contrast, signals its readiness to maintain pressure, hoping to force Tehran into concessions through a combination of diplomacy and coercive measures.

The broader context remains highly tense. The conflict, ongoing since late February, has already resulted in significant losses and destabilized energy markets. Iran has restricted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — a critical artery for global oil trade — while the United States has imposed a de facto maritime blockade, extending control over shipping far beyond the immediate region. This has driven up oil prices and heightened fears of a global economic crisis.

A previous round of talks in Islamabad, despite high-level participation, ended without results. Key disagreements persist, including Iran’s nuclear program, the sanctions regime, and control over the Strait of Hormuz. Even when the sides moved toward direct engagement, compromise proved unattainable, as each effectively demanded strategic concessions from the other.

The current model of indirect negotiations via Pakistan reflects a deterioration in the diplomatic process: instead of attempting a breakthrough, the sides are reverting to a more cautious format that reduces political risks but sharply limits the chances of a rapid outcome. This is typical of protracted conflicts, where participants are willing to “talk” but not to shift their positions.

A US delegation led by Vance is heading to Islamabad for talks with Iran

Pakistan’s role has taken on particular importance, effectively positioning it as the key mediator and venue for contacts. For Islamabad, this presents an opportunity to strengthen its international standing, but also poses a serious domestic challenge: the capital is already operating under heightened security measures and near-lockdown conditions in anticipation of the talks.

 

From an analytical perspective, the current phase can be described as a diplomatic stalemate with elements of managed escalation. The United States is intensifying pressure in hopes of economically and militarily exhausting Iran, while Tehran is betting on prolonging the process and avoiding direct talks to avoid appearing to concede. At the same time, the very existence of communication channels — even indirect ones — suggests that neither side is yet prepared for full-scale escalation. However, without changes to the fundamental conditions — particularly on sanctions and security in the Persian Gulf — the talks risk remaining a tool of political maneuvering rather than a genuine mechanism for resolution.

Expert in the field of history and international relations

Dr. Biser Banchev

#USA

#PAKISTAN

#IRAN

25.04.2026 05:53