By Asghar Ali Mubarak
There is a peculiar cruelty to a negotiation that brings enemies to the same room, only to watch them leave without shaking hands. The extended peace talks hosted by Islamabad between the United States and Iran have concluded without a final agreement, and yet the world has not exhaled. It is holding its breath. For two days in April, on the 11th and 12th of 2026, the highest-level direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since the revolution of 1979 unfolded in Pakistan’s meticulously secured capital. The outcome, or the lack of one, has left diplomats reaching for cautious optimism while generals on both sides quietly update their war plans. Let us be clear about what did not happen. There is no permanent ceasefire. There is no grand bargain. Iran has not abandoned its nuclear ambitions, and the United States has not abandoned its demand that it do so.
President Donald Trump, in his characteristic blend of bombast and bluntness, praised Pakistani leadership, particularly Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, for their role as facilitators. And yet, even as he offered thanks, he delivered a verdict that will echo through the Strait of Hormuz for months to come. Twenty hours of talks, he said, produced progress on several issues. But the nuclear problem remains immovable. Iran, he declared, is unwilling to give up what it clearly sees as its ultimate guarantor of security. And that, from Washington’s perspective, is unacceptable. What is remarkable, however, is not what was achieved but what was averted. For all the disappointment that followed the collapse of a final agreement, the simple fact that the two countries sat at the same table is itself a signal.
Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament and head of his country’s negotiating team, acknowledged Pakistan’s efforts with the kind of measured courtesy that diplomacy demands. But he did not hide the deeper truth. Iran distrusts the United States. It has trusted before, and it has been burned before. The memory of past conflicts, of broken promises, of the 1953 coup, of the nuclear deal torn up, hangs over every exchange. Qalibaf made clear that diplomacy, alongside military readiness, is essential to protect Iranian interests. This is not the language of a country preparing to surrender its nuclear program. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson later added, almost wearily, that no one had expected a single meeting to produce an agreement. That is the kind of statement designed to lower expectations, but it also reveals a truth that both sides know: this is a marathon, not a sprint.
The diplomatic community in Islamabad, a city accustomed to hosting fraught negotiations between improbable adversaries, has chosen to see the glass as half full. The talks, they argue, were a significant step forward. Not because they resolved anything, but because they established a process. The fact that both sides have presented different narratives to their own publics, each tailored to domestic political appetites, makes it nearly impossible to assess the true outcome. But perhaps that is the point. Perhaps the true outcome is not an agreement but an agreement to keep talking. The differences, it must be said, are enormous. Iran insists on demanding a transit fee, what some have called a toll tax, on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, through Vice President JD Vance, has expressed deep reservations, arguing that such a fee violates the principle of freedom of navigation on international waters. This is not a minor disagreement.
It goes to the heart of how the global economy functions. Then there is the matter of Lebanon and Gaza. Abbas Araqchi, the head of the Iranian delegation, has called for the release of Iran’s frozen funds and an immediate end to Israeli attacks on Hezbollah as major conditions for any lasting peace. The United States, for its part, is demanding written guarantees from Iran to impose stricter sanctions on its own nuclear program and to end support for regional groups that Washington designates as terrorist organizations. These are not the kind of differences that can be bridged with a handshake and a shared meal. And yet, the fact that both sides have agreed, at least for the time being, to refrain from any direct military action is not nothing. It is, in fact, the foundation upon which anything else might be built.
Pakistan’s role in all of this has been quietly indispensable. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar have met separately with both delegations, shuttling between them like traders at a bazaar trying to match a buyer with a seller. Pakistan is attempting to find a middle ground between Iran’s fifteen-point agenda and the United States’ ten-point agenda. It is a delicate dance, and not everyone is convinced it can succeed. But the effort itself has earned Pakistan a measure of international respect that its domestic troubles have long denied it. In a telephone conversation with his Egyptian counterpart, Badr Abdel Latif, Ishaq Dar briefed Cairo on the talks and stressed the importance of all parties maintaining their commitment to the ceasefire.
(The writer is a senior journalist covering various beats, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
