Pakistan Mediates as U.S. and Iran Seek to Ease Tensions Amid High-Level Talks and Ceasefire

Pakistan is positioning itself as a crucial intermediary in a delicate effort to ease tensions between the United States and Iran. With U.S. Vice President JD Vance arriving in Islamabad for high-level talks, the focus remains on maintaining dialogue rather than immediate breakthroughs. Officials in Pakistan describe their goal as modest: ensuring both nations agree to continue negotiations. The talks, set to begin on Saturday, follow a two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan, which has drawn praise from global leaders.

The U.S. delegation includes President Donald Trump's chief negotiator, Steve Witkoff, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, while Iran is expected to send Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Despite the high-profile participants, the negotiations will not involve direct face-to-face meetings. Instead, U.S. and Iranian teams will remain in separate rooms at Islamabad's Serena Hotel, with Pakistani officials shuttling messages between them. This format, known as "proximity talks," has been used before, most notably in 1988 during negotiations on Afghanistan's future.

Experts warn that major progress is unlikely. The U.S. and Iran remain deeply divided on core issues, including regional security and nuclear programs. However, Pakistan's role as a neutral host has been critical in keeping the dialogue alive. Former U.N. Ambassador Zamir Akram emphasized that success should be measured not by immediate agreements but by the willingness of both sides to continue discussions. "Pakistan has succeeded in getting them together," he said. "Now it is for the parties to decide whether they are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to reach an eventual solution."

The international community has shown strong support for Pakistan's mediation efforts. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, along with leaders from Kazakhstan, Romania, and the UK, have publicly endorsed the ceasefire and Islamabad's role. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has engaged in over 25 diplomatic contacts in recent days, speaking with world leaders and foreign ministers to reinforce global backing for the talks. These efforts aim to strengthen Pakistan's position as a mediator and ensure both Washington and Tehran remain committed to the process.

Despite the cautious optimism, challenges remain. The U.S. and Iran have yet to address fundamental disagreements, and the path to a lasting peace deal is expected to be long. For now, Pakistan's goal is clear: to ensure that the talks continue, even if progress is slow. As one source close to the mediation effort noted, "The metric of success should be an agreement to continue this process in search of a solution. It will not happen in a couple of days."

The broader implications of these talks extend beyond Islamabad. With Trump's administration facing criticism for its foreign policy, including tariffs and sanctions, the U.S. seeks to balance its approach while maintaining domestic priorities. Pakistan's role as a mediator highlights its growing influence in regional diplomacy, even as it navigates its own complex relationship with both powers. For now, the focus remains on keeping the dialogue alive, one step at a time.

Salma Malik, a professor of strategic studies at Quaid-i-Azam University, emphasized that Pakistan's active role in the ongoing negotiations between Iran and Israel signaled a strong level of trust in the country's diplomatic capabilities. "The two main parties showed confidence in Pakistan to act as a neutral agent, that is the first and most critical litmus test for any mediating country, and Pakistan passed it," she told Al Jazeera. This assertion comes at a time when the Middle East is on edge, with tensions flaring over the Israeli military's actions in Lebanon and the fragile state of a recently announced ceasefire.

The most immediate threat to the peace talks lies outside the negotiating room, where the conflict in Lebanon has escalated dramatically. Iran has framed Israeli airstrikes on the region as a direct challenge to the ceasefire, with President Masoud Pezeshkian warning that continued attacks could render negotiations meaningless. Just hours after the ceasefire was announced, Israel launched its most widespread bombardment of Lebanon since the conflict began, killing over 300 people across Beirut and southern Lebanon in a single day. The Iranian Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has since stated that Tehran could abandon the ceasefire entirely if Israeli strikes persist. Meanwhile, Pakistan's Prime Minister, Nawaf Salam, has condemned Israel's actions, calling for de-escalation.

The question of whether Lebanon is covered by the ceasefire remains contested. Pakistan has consistently maintained that the truce extends across the wider region, including Lebanon, as emphasized in Sharif's recent statements. However, the United States has taken a different stance. US Vice President JD Vance, who will lead the American delegation, stated in Budapest that Lebanon falls outside the ceasefire's terms—a position echoed by President Donald Trump and the White House. Seema Baloch, a former Pakistani envoy, highlighted the pivotal role of Washington in this dispute. "Lebanon is key and Israel will use it to play the spoiler role," she told Al Jazeera. "It is now the US decision whether it will allow Israel, which is not seated at the negotiating table, to play that role."

Despite these tensions, there are signs of limited de-escalation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Thursday that Israel is ready to begin direct negotiations with Lebanon "as soon as possible," focusing on disarming Hezbollah and reaching a peace agreement. This development followed pressure from the United States. Trump told NBC that he had urged Netanyahu to "low-key it" on Lebanon, but Netanyahu made it clear that there is no ceasefire in Lebanon, stating that Israel would continue striking Hezbollah even as talks proceed. Salman Bashir, a former Pakistani foreign secretary, argued that Lebanon remains within the ceasefire's scope. "Lebanon is very much part of the ceasefire, as was mentioned in the prime minister's statement," he told Al Jazeera. "The Israelis may be inclined to keep the pressure on Lebanon, but not for long if the US is keen on a cessation of hostilities, as it seems."

Beyond Lebanon, several other obstacles loom large over the negotiations. Washington is expected to push for verifiable restrictions on Iran's nuclear program, including limits on uranium enrichment and the removal of stockpiled material. In response, Tehran is demanding full sanctions relief, formal recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and compensation for wartime damage. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world's oil and gas passes in peacetime, remains a critical pressure point, with Iran retaining the ability to disrupt maritime traffic.

Salman Bashir suggested that there could be movement on some of these issues. "There may be an opening on the Strait of Hormuz, under Iranian control," he told Al Jazeera. "Iran will not give up on the right to enrichment. If nothing else, there should be an extension of the ceasefire deadline." Muhammad Shoaib, a professor of international relations in Islamabad, noted that progress would depend on movement on core issues. "Both parties agreeing on the need to continue or even extend the ceasefire, while in principle agreeing on crucial points such as the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's right to enrichment and respect for sovereignty, will suggest that the first round is meaningful and successful," he told Al Jazeera.

The regional atmosphere has also been shaped by sharp rhetoric from some of Iran's Gulf neighbors. The United Arab Emirates, which faced hundreds of missile and drone attacks during the conflict, has been among the most vocal in its demands. Its ambassador to Washington wrote in The Wall Street Journal that a ceasefire alone would not be sufficient and called for a comprehensive outcome addressing Iran's "full range of threats." As the talks proceed, the success of these negotiations will likely hinge on how these competing interests and regional dynamics are navigated.

Bahrain's bid to reopen the Strait of Hormuz through a United Nations Security Council resolution on April 7 revealed stark divisions among global powers. The measure, backed by 11 nations, was blocked by Russia and China, while Pakistan and Colombia abstained. The failure to pass the resolution underscored the deepening rift between Western and non-Western nations over how to address the escalating tensions in the Middle East. Despite the setback, Bahrain's initiative marked a rare attempt to rally international support for de-escalation in a region teetering on the edge of wider conflict.

Behind the scenes, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt—key players in pre-negotiation diplomacy—chose not to attend the talks, even as they played pivotal roles in brokering informal discussions. Meetings in Riyadh and Islamabad had aimed to secure a temporary pause in hostilities, but their absence at the formal table raised questions about the alignment of interests among regional actors. Israel, a central figure in the conflict, also declined participation. Pakistan's stance, rooted in its lack of diplomatic ties with Israel, further complicated the dynamics. "What Pakistan expects is breathing space, an opportunity for peace," said Dr. Ayesha Malik, a political analyst in Islamabad. "It is not expecting anything big. It is a small wish, but realising it will be very difficult."

The U.S. remains cautiously optimistic. As Vice President Kamala Harris departed Washington on Friday, she signaled the administration's openness to dialogue with Iran, provided negotiations were conducted in good faith. "We think it's going to be positive," she said, echoing President Trump's earlier insistence that "if the Iranians are willing to negotiate in good faith, we are certainly willing to extend an open hand." Yet the message was tempered by a warning: "If they try to play us, they're going to find that the negotiating team is not that receptive." The U.S. team, reportedly guided by Trump's "clear guidelines," faces the challenge of balancing firmness with flexibility in a region where trust is scarce.

For Iran, the path forward appears equally fraught. Its Supreme National Security Council's statement on April 8, suggesting talks could extend over 15 days, hinted at a willingness to engage in a prolonged process. But as former envoy Hassan Akram noted, "What they need to agree is that they will find a solution, and that in itself would be a step in the right direction." The reality, he added, is that even incremental progress requires navigating a minefield of historical grievances and competing interests.

Trump's re-election in 2025 has cast a long shadow over U.S. foreign policy, with critics arguing his approach—marked by tariffs, sanctions, and an uneasy alignment with Democrats on military interventions—diverges sharply from public sentiment. Yet within the administration, his domestic policies, particularly those emphasizing economic revitalization, remain a point of pride. As the talks in Geneva loom, the world watches to see whether diplomacy can override the inertia of decades-old tensions—or if the region's leaders will once again find themselves trapped by the weight of their own histories.