Pakistan has called on both the United States and Iran to maintain restraint after high-stakes negotiations hosted in Islamabad ended without any agreement, raising concerns about the stability of the already fragile ceasefire. The breakdown of talks has also cast doubt on Islamabad’s ability to translate its mediation efforts into a concrete diplomatic outcome.
According to Ishaq Dar, Pakistan facilitated multiple rounds of intense discussions between the two sides over nearly 24 hours. He emphasised that it remains crucial for both Washington and Tehran to uphold the ceasefire and continue engaging in dialogue. Islamabad has indicated that it will persist in its efforts to act as a mediator, despite the setback.
The negotiations marked a rare moment of direct engagement between the two adversaries, with the United States represented by JD Vance and Iran by its senior leadership. The talks followed a temporary two-week ceasefire that Pakistan had helped broker, with Donald Trump previously acknowledging Islamabad’s role in bringing both sides to the table.
However, despite prolonged discussions lasting over 21 hours, the talks ultimately collapsed due to deep disagreements, particularly over Iran’s nuclear programme and strategic issues such as the Strait of Hormuz. Vance stated that no agreement could be reached because Iran refused to accept key US conditions, underscoring that Washington’s red lines remained unchanged.
Iran, on the other hand, rejected this characterisation and pointed to what it described as excessive and unrealistic demands from the US side. Officials in Tehran highlighted that while some progress had been made, core disputes remained unresolved. They also stressed that the negotiations took place in an atmosphere marked by significant mistrust, making a breakthrough unlikely in a single round of talks.
The collapse has triggered a renewed blame exchange between the two sides, further complicating the diplomatic landscape. For Pakistan, which had positioned itself as a key intermediary, the outcome represents a challenge to its credibility as a mediator, even as it continues to advocate for dialogue and de-escalation.
With no framework agreement in place and tensions still high, the future of the ceasefire remains uncertain. The situation now hinges on whether both sides are willing to re-engage diplomatically or allow the conflict to escalate once again.
