The attention of the international community is focused on Islamabad, where Pakistan is making active efforts to arrange a second round of talks between Washington and Tehran. It was initially planned that US Vice President J.D. Vance and Speaker of the Iranian Parliament Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf would take part in the talks. However, Tehran, through Pakistani intermediaries, informed that it would refuse to send its delegation. US President Donald Trump, in turn, announced an indefinite extension of the ceasefire and postponed his deputy’s visit to Pakistan, casting serious doubt on the fate of the dialogue. In a statement on his platform Truth Social, Trump said he had agreed at Pakistan’s request “to halt our advance on Iran until its leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal.”
Diplomatic activity is taking place against rising military tension in the region. Washington has imposed a maritime blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, to which Tehran responded by re-closing this strategically important waterway after just one day of it being open. Naval clashes reached a new level when an Iranian vessel was detained at dawn on Monday. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ismail Bagai warned: “The United States does not learn from its experience, and this will never end well.” Trump, for his part, indicated that ending the ceasefire without an agreement could lead to escalation, saying that “many bombs will start exploding.”
The first possible scenario involves the collapse of the second round of talks, which would mean the failure of the negotiation process even before it resumes. In that case, one or both sides might refuse to return to the negotiating table. Such an outcome could push each country to use alternative means of pressure, including tightening sanctions, diplomatic demarches, or escalatory rhetoric. This would weaken the role of mediators and increase the likelihood of deepening disagreements. Analysts note that such a breakdown would leave the situation unchanged or worsen it, creating the threat of expanded regional clashes.
The second scenario envisages the talks taking place and a temporary agreement or understanding being reached. Pakistan is trying to persuade both sides to agree to multi-day talks that could lead to the signing of a “memorandum of understanding” and an extension of the ceasefire. However, experts warn that such an agreement is unlikely to be final—rather, it would cement the ceasefire and create a common framework for addressing the nuclear issue in exchange for partial easing of sanctions against Tehran. A significant gulf between the parties’ positions remains, especially on uranium enrichment, control of the Strait of Hormuz, and frozen assets, which limits optimism about the possibility of quickly reaching a comprehensive solution.
The third scenario foresees talks taking place without any substantial breakthrough, meaning major disagreements would persist if Washington and Tehran do not make meaningful concessions. Expert Anise Bassiri Tabrizi notes that reaching an agreement would require a radical shift in both sides’ positions, which currently seems unlikely. Trump insists on handing over enriched uranium stockpiles and a complete cessation of all enrichment activities—demands Iran rejects. In response, Ghalibaf warned that Trump “seeks to turn these talks, in his own imagination, into negotiations of surrender or to justify a resumption of military aggression.”
The fourth scenario considers a total failure of the talks and the end of the ceasefire. This outcome would return the region to military escalation with the potential for strikes on critical Iranian infrastructure. Ghalibaf stated: “We have completed preparations to deploy new capabilities on the battlefield,” reflecting Iran’s readiness for military action should diplomacy collapse. Ali Vaez’s analysis shows that the main obstacle remains the question of whether the US is willing to ease pressure enough to give diplomacy credibility, and whether Iran is willing to limit its influence to ensure the continuation of talks. Otherwise, the ceasefire could lead to a large-scale regional escalation.
Commentary on the news
How does the speaker of parliament (Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf) normally factor into Iran’s foreign policy and negotiations, given that the position is often associated with domestic affairs? - In Iran’s political system the speaker of parliament is formally not responsible for foreign policy, which falls under the Supreme Leader, the Foreign Ministry, and the National Security Council. However, Ghalibaf, as an influential figure with experience in the IRGC and ties to security structures, can make important statements and influence public opinion. His remarks often reflect the position of conservative circles, but they are not Iran’s official negotiating stance.
Why is Pakistan acting as a mediator between the US and Iran, and what is the historical context of its diplomatic relations with both parties? - Pakistan has unique relations with both countries: with the US as an ally with longstanding military and economic ties, and with Iran as a neighbor with historical, cultural, and religious connections. Islamabad has traditionally maintained neutrality in Middle Eastern conflicts and has channels of communication with both Tehran and Washington. Historically Pakistan has served as a mediator in regional disputes, seeking to reduce tensions on its borders, which aligns with its national security interests.
What are the historical precedents and strategic calculations behind Iran’s use of control over the Strait of Hormuz as a tool of pressure in international negotiations? - Iran has repeatedly used the threat of closing the Strait of Hormuz (through which about 20% of the world’s oil passes) as a pressure tool since the 1980s. Historical precedents include the “tanker war” during the Iran–Iraq War and threats in response to sanctions in the 2010s. Tehran’s strategic calculation is based on the vulnerability of the world economy to disruptions in oil supplies, which strengthens its negotiating position, especially on nuclear issues and sanctions.
Full version: الحرب الإيرانية الأمريكية.. 4 سيناريوهات لما سيحدث بمفاوضات باكستان