Amid a fragile ceasefire attempting to contain the aftermath of two intense wars within a single year, attention has shifted to Islamabad, where decisive negotiations between the United States and Iran are underway.
While the atmosphere reflects temporary de-escalation, the nuclear issue remains central to talks that go beyond preventing renewed conflict, aiming instead to address a crisis that has persisted for decades.
Washington’s Demands vs Tehran’s Red Lines
The United States enters negotiations backed by a firm stance from Donald Trump, who has stated that American forces will remain positioned in and around Iran to ensure compliance with any agreement.
Washington is pushing two primary demands: the transfer of 450 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and the complete termination of Iran’s nuclear programme.
In contrast, Tehran is holding to what it describes as non-negotiable principles. Mohammad Eslami, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, dismissed calls to restrict the programme as unrealistic, reaffirming Iran’s sovereign right to enrichment.
Israel as a Third Actor
On the parallel track, Benjamin Netanyahu has inserted Israel directly into the equation with explicit warnings. He stated that the ceasefire is not the end of the war but merely a pause, emphasising alignment with Washington on removing enriched uranium from Iran, either through agreement or renewed military action.
Israeli Leverage and the Hormuz Pressure Point
Analyst Mahjoob Zweiri interprets the timing of the nuclear focus as a form of Israeli pressure on the Trump administration, aimed at disrupting de-escalation efforts and forcing Washington into a more aggressive posture.
He noted that these negotiations differ from previous rounds, as they follow what he described as systematic targeting of Iran’s economic and nuclear infrastructure, including facilities at Saghand, Natanz, Arak, and Isfahan.
Despite this, highly enriched uranium remains secured in underground sites, making any technical resolution complex.
Zweiri also described the Strait of Hormuz as the true strategic pressure point, arguing that any breakdown in negotiations could trigger a global economic crisis through disruption of maritime trade. This risk is driving international and European actors to push for a successful diplomatic outcome.
Negotiation Teams Take Shape
According to reports from the White House, the US delegation in Islamabad includes Vice President J. D. Vance, envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, along with US Central Command commander Brad Cooper.
On the Iranian side, reports indicate that Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are leading the delegation.
Three Scenarios on the Table
Based on current dynamics, three potential outcomes are emerging:
- 35 percent chance of a negotiated agreement: involving reduced enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief and access to frozen assets.
- 35 percent chance of extending the ceasefire: allowing more time to bridge gaps without the pressure of the two-week deadline.
- 30 percent chance of failure: leading to a return to full-scale war.
Zweiri suggests that extending the ceasefire remains a strong possibility, as the negotiation process itself may create momentum for further rounds rather than immediate escalation. This is particularly relevant given that recent military confrontations did not weaken Iran to the extent anticipated by Washington and Tel Aviv.
A Negotiation Shaped by War
The talks are taking place under a temporary two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan, aimed at reaching a comprehensive agreement to end the war that began on 28 February and resulted in thousands of casualties in Iran.
At its core, the negotiations are not simply about halting hostilities, but about redefining the balance of power across the region. Whether this process leads to de-escalation or renewed confrontation will depend on how both sides navigate the unresolved issues surrounding the nuclear programme and strategic control points such as the Strait of Hormuz.
