ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Senior U.S. and Iranian delegations converged Saturday for what would be the highest-level contact between the two countries since 1979, even as Tehran warned formal negotiations may not begin until Washington addresses Lebanon and sanctions. The pressure on both sides is immediate: the ceasefire has paused U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran, but it has not reopened the Strait of Hormuz or resolved whether Lebanon is covered by the truce, April 11.
Vice President JD Vance is leading the U.S. delegation, while Iran sent parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi. Pakistani officials sealed off parts of the capital as diplomats, security personnel and advance teams arrived for a meeting that could either harden the current pause into a wider deal or expose how little common ground exists. If the session becomes face to face, it would be the first direct U.S.-Iran talks since 2015.
Why the US-Iran peace talks could stall before they start
Iran’s first objective is leverage, not optics. Tehran says Washington must first move toward a ceasefire in Lebanon and relief tied to sanctions and blocked assets. That position comes as the Hormuz blockade continues to squeeze energy supplies and the Lebanon front remains active, turning every delay into both a military and economic problem.
The deeper problem is that the ceasefire itself is disputed. The first gap is over whether Lebanon was included in the truce at all. Tehran says a halt in hostilities there was part of the understanding. Washington and Israel say it was not. That leaves negotiators arguing not only over the terms of a future settlement, but over the meaning of the deal that was supposed to get them into the room.
What the US-Iran peace talks must resolve
The formal agenda is even harder than the sequencing fight. The main talking points heading into the meeting include sanctions relief, the release of blocked assets, compensation for war damage, the future of uranium enrichment, missile limits and the rules governing shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran wants recognition of its authority over the waterway and insists enrichment remains a sovereign right. Washington wants the strait open without tolls or restrictions and has ruled out enrichment as part of any final arrangement.
That is why Islamabad is not a routine diplomatic photo opportunity. Vance said he expected a positive outcome but warned, “If they’re going to try to play us, then they’re going to find the negotiating team is not that receptive.” Pakistan’s foreign minister, Ishaq Dar, said he hoped the sides could reach a “lasting and durable solution to the conflict.” Both remarks point to the same truth: the U.S.-Iran channel cannot be separated from the broader regional fights, including the parallel U.S.-mediated effort to bring Israel and Lebanon into their own talks.
A diplomatic trail that kept breaking
This weekend’s mistrust did not begin with the latest war. It runs through President Donald Trump’s 2018 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the 2023 detainee swap and funds-release deal that showed limited bargains were still possible, and the Oman talks in April 2025 that both sides initially described as constructive before diplomacy gave way to war. That history does not make a breakthrough impossible, but it does explain why even modest progress in Islamabad would count as a meaningful result.
For now, the meeting is less a destination than a test. If negotiators can define the ceasefire the same way, sequence concessions without collapsing politically at home, and prevent Lebanon from dictating the pace of every exchange, the talks could become the first step toward a broader settlement. If they cannot, Hormuz will remain a choke point, Lebanon a trigger, and the ceasefire little more than a pause between rounds.
