ConflictClarifier

Rastreador de la Crisis Irán-Golfo 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 16, 2026

No date set for US-Iran talks, as Pakistan pushes to keep diplomacy alive

Summary

No date set for US-Iran talks, as Pakistan pushes to keep diplomacy alive Pakistan’s prime minister and army chief are both travelling to key players in the war, attempting to keep talks going. Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday confirmed that the United States and Iran were in discussions – through Islamabad – to hold a second meeting between their negotiators to end their now nearly seven-week war, with a fragile ceasefire announced on April 8 days away from expiring. But it added that no date had been set for that next round of negotiations, even as Islamabad stepped up a parallel diplomatic push to keep the process alive. Recommended Storieslist of 4 items - list 1 of 4How Pakistan managed to get the US and Iran to a ceasefire - list 2 of 4Pakistan eyes narrow window to resuscitate US-Iran talks after breakdown - list 3 of 4Pakistan army chief in Tehran to advance next round of US-Iran talks - list 4 of 4Hopes grow for a breakthrough in US-Iran talks as Pakistan mediates “Who will come, how big the delegation will be, who will stay, and who will go is for the parties to decide,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi told reporters in Islamabad, referring to what upcoming talks might look like. “As a mediator, it’s important for us to keep the talks confidential. We had the details and information of the talks entrusted to us by the negotiating parties.” Speaking of the first round of talks on April 12 in Islamabad, which concluded without a deal, Andrabi said: “There was neither a breakthrough nor a breakdown.” The spokesperson confirmed that nuclear issues remained among the key subjects under discussion, but declined to elaborate. His comments came as Pakistan’s civil and military leadership is travelling across the region in what some observers have begun calling the “Islamabad Process”, reflecting the government’s attempt to frame negotiations as an ongoing diplomatic effort rather than a one-off engagement. Parallel diplomatic tracks Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif arrived in Doha on Thursday, the second stop of a four-day regional tour that began with Jeddah on Wednesday, and will see him visiting Antalya next. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Asim Munir arrived in Tehran on Wednesday with a delegation that included Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi. Munir was received at the airport with a warm hug from Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said he was “delighted” to welcome the field marshal and expressed gratitude for Pakistan’s “gracious hosting of dialogue”. On Thursday, Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led Tehran’s delegation at the Islamabad talks, also met Munir. Reza Amiri Moghadam, Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, said at an event in Islamabad that Tehran would not consider any venue other than Pakistan for talks with Washington. “We will do talks in Pakistan and nowhere else, because we trust Pakistan,” he said. Muhammad Faisal, a Pakistani security analyst and scholar at the University of Technology Sydney, said the parallel outreach reflected a deliberate division of labour. “Pakistan’s strategy appears to be dual-tracked: PM Sharif is reassuring Gulf allies and attempting to build a broader support coalition, while CDF Munir is engaged in hard negotiations between the two sides to narrow gaps between Iran and the US, with an eye on extending the ceasefire and reaching a broader understanding,” he told Al Jazeera. Reports that Munir might travel to Washington, DC after Tehran were denied by security officials, who called them “speculative”. Andrabi said he was not aware of any such development. In Jeddah on Wednesday, Sharif met Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and expressed “full solidarity and support” for the kingdom following regional escalation, according to Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry. The crown prince praised what Riyadh described as the “constructive role” played by both Sharif and Munir. In Doha, Sharif met Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and discussed “the regional situation, particularly in the Gulf region”, underscoring “the importance of de-escalation, dialogue and close international coordination to ensure peace and stability”, the prime minister’s office said. From Doha, Sharif heads to Antalya with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. They are expected to meet counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and potentially Egypt on the sidelines of the Antalya Diplomacy Forum on April 17. Regional security push The Antalya meeting is part of a broader diplomatic effort. Turkiye is preparing to host talks on a regional security platform involving Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and possibly Egypt, according to officials familiar with the discussions. It would be the third such meeting in a month, following earlier rounds of talks in Riyadh and Islamabad. The goal is to establish a platform for regular, structured cooperation on regional security issues, the officials said, stressing the discussions are distinct from current efforts to end the Iran war. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan confirmed that discussions were under way, but said no agreement had been finalised. “This pact is necessary so that countries can be assured of one another,” he told the state-run Anadolu Agency on Monday. Turkiye also reaffirmed support for the US-Iran peace process on Thursday. “We will continue to provide the necessary support for the ongoing ceasefire to turn into a permanent truce and eventually lasting peace, without becoming more complex and difficult to manage,” the Defence Ministry said, adding that it expected “the parties will be constructive in the ongoing negotiation process”. Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said senior officials from the four countries had also met in Islamabad earlier this week to prepare recommendations for Antalya. Ceasefire under strain The two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan on April 8, which halted attacks in Iran and the Gulf, is due to expire on April 22. While still holding, it is under increasing strain. A US naval blockade on Iranian ports remains in place, with the US Central Command saying its forces had turned away nine ships as of Wednesday. Kamran Yousuf, an Islamabad-based journalist and expert on diplomatic affairs, said he expected the ceasefire to be extended. “I would be really surprised if the current ceasefire is not extended. There is little appetite on both sides to go back to war. There are enough signs on the ground that if there is no deal before the truce expires, the ceasefire will be extended,” he told Al Jazeera. Faisal offered a more cautious assessment, warning that failure to secure a second round would shift Pakistan’s role. “Pakistan’s mediation will not collapse immediately, but Islamabad’s role will change from mediator to crisis manager. If hostilities resume, Pakistan will focus again on brokering a ceasefire,” he said. Despite uncertainty, signals from both Washington and Tehran have remained cautiously optimistic. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said further talks would “very likely” take place in Islamabad, adding, “We feel good about the prospects of a deal.” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said multiple messages had been exchanged with Washington through Pakistan since April 12. US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that talks could resume within two days and that Washington was “more inclined to go” to Pakistan. Sticking points remain The path to a second round remains complicated by unresolved disputes. Iran has insisted that Lebanon be included in any agreement, arguing that ongoing Israeli strikes there, which have killed more than 2,000 people and displaced 1.2 million, cannot be separated from the wider conflict. On April 14, the United States convened a trilateral meeting in Washington with the ambassadors of Israel and Lebanon, the first direct engagement between the two sides since 1993. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio mediated the talks, which both sides described as “productive”, but no ceasefire or follow-up meeting was agreed. Washington has maintained that any Lebanon deal must remain separate from US-Iran negotiations, rejecting Tehran’s position. On Thursday, Israel said its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would speak on the phone with Lebanese President Joseph Aoun — but Beirut had not confirmed any plans for a telephone conversation. The two countries do not have formal diplomatic relations. At Thursday’s briefing, Andrabi aligned Pakistan with Iran on this issue. “Peace in Lebanon is essential for US-Iran peace talks,” he said, adding that “signs of improvement on the Israel-Lebanon front over the past two days are encouraging.” Yousuf said a Lebanon ceasefire would send an important signal to Iran. “Extending the ceasefire to Lebanon will be an important confidence-building measure, a signal from the US that it is serious about a second round. It will also give Tehran good reason to return to the table,” he said. But he added that the deeper challenge remained Iran’s nuclear programme. “The nuclear issue is at the heart of the real problem. The flurry of shuttle diplomacy initiated by Pakistan is aimed at bridging the gap between the two sides,” he said. Grace Wermenbol, a former US national security official and senior visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund, said Washington’s approach to Lebanon would hinge on Trump’s willingness to pressure Israel. “A clear pathway to a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon exists,” she told Al Jazeera. “The question is whether Trump will be willing to apply the pressure necessary on Israel to halt its military offensive and allow the Lebanese government to continue its military disarmament efforts. So far, and this is also true for the months preceding the latest escalation between Israel and Hezbollah, we have not seen this pressure materialise.” The Strait of Hormuz remains another major obstacle. The waterway, through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil passes during peacetime, has effectively been blocked by Iran since early in the war, except for ships belonging to countries that have struck individual deals with Tehran. Starting Monday, the US imposed its own naval blockade on the strait, to prevent any Iran-linked vessel from passing through. “Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as the primary issue in US-Iranian negotiations. Opening it is crucial to easing upward pressure on oil prices and instilling confidence in global markets,” Wermenbol said. She added that Tehran appeared to be betting Washington would eventually back down. “There is no easy military option here,” she said. “The only way to resolve this issue and remove the threat to maritime traffic will need to involve a diplomatic deal.”

Actors involved

USIsraelIranProxy

Sources

  • Abid HussainBy Abid Hussain

    No date set for US-Iran talks, as Pakistan pushes to keep diplomacy alive Pakistan’s prime minister and army chief are both travelling to key players in the war, attempting to keep talks going. Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry on Thursday confirmed that the Unite

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran