Negotiations between the United States and Iran in Pakistan have hit a stalemate over who controls the Strait of Hormuz, with both sides digging in over one of the most consequential issues in the talks.According to the Financial Times, two people briefed on the discussions said the reopening of the strait remained a central sticking point. One said Iranian negotiators were insisting that Tehran retain sovereign control over the waterway and retain the right to levy tolls on passing vessels, while flatly rejecting proposals for any form of joint control with the US — even after a high-level meeting between US Vice-President JD Vance and Iran's wartime leader Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Negotiators were holding a working dinner, to be followed by technical discussions later on Saturday night, one of the sources added.AFP reported that Vance had earlier expressed cautious optimism, saying he expected the talks to be "positive" but cautioning Iranian negotiators "not to play us." Iran, for its part, said it was prepared to reach a deal but did not "trust" Washington.Iranian state media offered a sharper characterisation of the impasse. Fars news agency reported that the US was making "excessive demands" regarding the strait, and that several other American positions were similarly unacceptable. The Tasnim news agency also flagged Washington's demands over the strategic waterway as a point of serious contention.The strait, through which roughly a fifth of global crude oil passes, has been closed since the US and Israel began bombing Iran in late February.

Whatever be the outcome of the Islamabad talks — and undeniably, these remain on highly fragile ground — Pakistan’s rearguard diplomacy to even get the US and Iran to come to the negotiating table cannot be credited enough, especially after US President Donald Trump’s threat to “wipe out a civilisation” that left the world teetering on the edge. When the world’s most powerful nations cannot speak to each other, they have often found a way to whisper — through Pakistan. It is a role Islamabad has quietly perfected over half a century: the trusted go-between, the carrier of messages that dare not travel openly, the host of conversations that officially never happened. Neither fully Western nor wholly Eastern, neither Arab nor Persian, Pakistan occupies a peculiar diplomatic sweet spot — and it has learned, with considerable skill, to make that ambiguity pay. The most celebrated example came in 1971, when General Yahya Khan’s government shepherded Henry Kissinger through Islamabad on a clandestine flight to Beijing, laying the groundwork for Nixon’s historic opening to China. It was a masterstroke of quiet statecraft — Pakistan asking no questions, seeking no credit, content with gratitude and goodwill from two of the world’s great powers simultaneously. That currency proved extraordinarily durable. The pattern repeated across the decades, in different registers and with varying degrees of success. During the Soviet-Afghan War, Pakistan was the indispensable frontline partner in the UN-brokered Geneva talks, coordinating mujahideen pressure and diplomatic suasion in equal measure until Moscow agreed to withdraw. The resulting accords were a genuine achievement. Between 2018 and 2020, Pakistan’s stubborn leverage over the Afghan Taliban made it central to the Doha Agreement, the deal that ended America’s longest war. In the chronic cold war between Riyadh and Tehran, Islamabad has positioned itself with particular care. It declined to join Saudi Arabia’s Yemen coalition in 2015, a decision that caused diplomatic friction but preserved Pakistan’s credibility in Tehran. It then used that credibility to quietly work the phones during successive spikes in Gulf tension offering itself as a de-escalation channel at moments when the alternative was an escalation nobody could afford. These were not headline-grabbing mediations. They were precisely the kind Pakistan does best: discreet and potentially invaluable. What makes Islamabad useful in these situations is that its relationships run in every direction simultaneously — a sometimes-fractious — but currently, close — partnership with Washington, inseparable ties with Tehran, economic dependency on the Gulf states, and an all-weather strategic alliance with Beijing. Where outside observers see a country pulled uncomfortably in competing directions, Islamabad sees leverage. The contradiction is the asset. It is worth noting who augments this diplomacy: the powerful military that sustains Pakistan’s backchannel relationships across administrations, elections, and crises. Now, in 2026, that same tradecraft is being applied to the most combustible dossier on the planet: the long-running stand-off between Washington and Tehran. Islamabad is hosting talks, passing proposals — including a reported 15-point American framework — co-ordinating with Turkiye, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and China, and presenting itself, with characteristic understatement, as merely honoured to be of service to regional peace. Whether this episode yields a genuine breakthrough or dissolves into the familiar fog of stalled negotiations remains genuinely uncertain. But the instinct endures, and the infrastructure of relationships that makes it possible has never been dismantled. In a world that runs chronically short of honest brokers — of countries trusted, however provisionally, by parties who trust almost nobody else — Pakistan keeps raising its hand. In the right moment, that is no small thing to be.

In a city that has rarely been short of drama, the Serena Hotel is hosting something that would have seemed unthinkable just months ago — American and Iranian officials sitting across from each other, exchanging written texts, dining, and trying to find a way out of a war that has shaken the Middle East to its foundations and sent tremors through the global economy. Yet for all the symbolism of the moment, the substance remains stubbornly elusive. After two rounds of talks and well into a third, the negotiations have run into the one obstacle that was always going to be the hardest to clear: who controls the Strait of Hormuz. The White House said the United States, Pakistan, and Iran held face-to-face trilateral talks. Its senior official said the three sides were meeting directly in person, marking a shift from recent negotiations where Washington and Tehran communicated through intermediaries while seated in separate rooms. **media[434607]**Two people briefed on the discussions told the Financial Times that the waterway remains the central sticking point. Iran is insisting on retaining full sovereign control of the strait and the right to levy tolls on vessels passing through it — a position that amounts, in Washington's eyes, to Tehran holding the world's energy supply to permanent ransom. Iranian negotiators have flatly rejected any notion of joint control, even after reportedly a face-to-face meeting between US Vice-President JD Vance and Iran's wartime parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. The word being used by those close to the talks is stark: stalemate. **media[434608]** In a late development, Al Jazeera reported that three planes from Tehran had landed at Pakistan's Nur Khan Airbase. The motive was not clear, although they were reported to be affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, supporting the Quds Force and Aerospace Force. Al Jazeera also quoted Iranian sources as saying that "some experts" might be travelling to Pakistan as the talks enter a detailed phase. But the Iranian state media were less diplomatic in their characterisation of the how the talks were proceeding. The Fars news agency reported that Washington was making "excessive demands" regarding the strait, while Tasnim flagged the American position as a point of serious contention across multiple issues. Tehran says it is willing to reach a deal — but does not trust Washington to honour one. Vance, for his part, arrived in Islamabad projecting cautious optimism, saying he expected the talks to be "positive" while warning the Iranians bluntly "not to play us." It is the kind of language that reflects both the opportunity and the fragility of this moment. A Pakistani official, speaking anonymously to AFP, offered a more measured but encouraging read: "I can say that discussions are moving positively and the overall atmosphere is cordial." The talks very nearly did not happen at all. As recently as Friday, Iran threatened to pull out unless Israeli strikes in Lebanon stopped. Ghalibaf had made Tehran's participation conditional on two demands — a halt to attacks in Beirut and Dahieh, and the release of approximately seven billion dollars in frozen Iranian assets. An Iranian official told Dawn newspaper: "We forced a pause in attacks in Beirut and Dahieh by making it a red line in negotiations and also made it clear that if Israel crosses it again, talks would be off." The crisis was averted, but it served as a reminder of just how many threads could unravel this process at any moment. The delegations assembled in Islamabad reflect the gravity with which both sides are approaching the moment, whatever their public posturing. The American team is led by Vance and accompanied by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff — a combination of political weight and deal-making experience. Iran has sent Ghalibaf alongside Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, supported by deputy foreign ministers, the head of the state bank, and specialist committees covering economic, military, legal and nuclear matters. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian posted on X that his delegation remained "fully committed" to protecting Iran's interests, urging them to "negotiate courageously" and pledging that the government would "stand by its people" regardless of the outcome. Before negotiations began in earnest, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held separate meetings with both delegations — a visible assertion of Pakistan's role not merely as a convenor but as an active mediator. He greeted Ghalibaf and Araghchi with embraces, and told both sides he hoped the talks would serve as "a stepping stone toward durable peace in the region." Pakistan's Law Minister Azam Nazeer Tarar was characteristically candid about the scale of what is being attempted. Forty-seven years of enmity, he noted, cannot be resolved in a few hours. Both delegations are in constant contact with their respective governments, and neither will commit to anything without prior authorisation from their leadership. The talks, originally scheduled for a single day on April 10, may extend beyond Saturday if the engagement warrants it. The strait through which roughly a fifth of the world's crude oil passes has been effectively closed since the US and Israel began bombing Iran on February 28. The two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan on April 8 created the space for these talks — but it is a fragile pause, not a peace. What happens in the rooms of the Serena Hotel in the coming hours may determine whether that ceasefire hardens into something lasting, or dissolves into the next round of destruction. The world, for now, is watching Islamabad.