Washington’s harsh demands and Tehran’s intransigence threaten to derail the Iran peace process

The ceasefire between Iran and the United States expires on April 21. It remains unclear whether it will be extended or whether the Middle East will once again become the scene of military operations.

Islamabad, which, thanks to its skillful diplomacy, managed to host the first, albeit unfinished, direct meeting between US and Iranian negotiators on April 11-12, has taken new steps to bring the US and Iran closer together in order to reach an agreement on resolving the military conflict. Although he has not yet succeeded in persuading the parties to abandon their maximalist positions on a number of fundamental disagreements and move toward mutually acceptable compromise solutions, Pakistani leaders have not abandoned attempts to hold a second decisive US-Iranian meeting aimed at laying the foundations for a political settlement of the conflict.

Islamabad is Persistent

Pakistan’s leadership must be commended for not giving up after the failed negotiations between US and Iranian delegations on April 11-12, 2026, in Islamabad, when the parties failed to agree on key points of an agreement that would have led to de-escalation of the conflict and normalization of the situation. The parties’ unwillingness to make concessions and reach compromise solutions on fundamental settlement issues, as well as a lack of mutual trust and understanding, doomed the first round of talks initiated by Pakistan’s leaders. Irreconcilable differences over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program (primarily related to the issue of further uranium enrichment), reparations, the lifting of sanctions, and the cessation of Israeli bombing of Lebanon prevented the parties from reaching agreement and compromise.

Despite the negative outcome of the meeting and the apparent impasse, its organizers continued contact with both sides without respite and began to urge them to engage in a new round of negotiations in order to resume dialogue and attempt to advance toward reaching concrete agreements on the most pressing and sensitive unresolved issues.

It is commendable that the initiators of the negotiation process viewed the unsuccessful outcome of the first round of talks in Islamabad not as a complete fiasco, but rather as a transitional stage for continuing shuttle diplomacy and dialogue. To the three active key figures – the prime minister. Sharif, Pakistan’s Chief of Army and Defence Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, and Foreign Minister Ibrahim Dar were joined by the equally influential Defence Minister Hassan Asif and Interior Minister Mahmoud Naqvi. They have maintained constant contact with both sides, exchanging negotiating proposals and information. Together, they are seeking to persuade the warring parties to return to the negotiating table in an attempt to reach an agreement before the fragile two-week ceasefire expires on April 21.

The goal is to extend the ceasefire

In the event of a delay and a possible resumption of hostilities, the goal is to extend the ceasefire to continue the negotiation process with the participation of mediators. Of particular significance was the visit to Tehran on April 16 of Field Marshal Asim Munir, a respected and trusted figure who is also personally known to Donald Trump. During the visit, the US and Iran’s red lines for resuming negotiations were discussed. Subsequently, he, again enjoying the special trust of both parties, traveled to Antalya to coordinate Tehran’s position with his partners, primarily on issues of enriched uranium, the Strait of Hormuz, and other key disagreements. At the same time, all these topics were at the center of discussions with Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif during his visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey from April 15 to 18. In all three capitals, Islamabad’s mediating role in de-escalating the conflict surrounding Iran and Lebanon was particularly noted. And whatever the various states’ views on Pakistan’s innovative and important role as an honest broker, it must be stated objectively that the strategic and geopolitical position of this important nuclear-armed state, its multi-vector and, to a certain extent, equidistant foreign policy, its desire to maintain a balance of power, its advanced relations with Washington, Beijing, Tehran, and Riyadh, and the active mediation diplomacy skillfully pursued by its leaders, despite the pause in the negotiation process, are creating conditions for a new meeting in Islamabad.

Flexibility versus Maximalism

The mediation efforts focus on the key issues related to reaching agreement between the parties on Iran’s future nuclear program, the continuation or cessation of uranium enrichment, control over uranium reserves, the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz, the US lifting its naval blockade, and the restoration of free navigation in exchange for the easing of US sanctions and the return of frozen assets to Tehran.

To this end, the mediators are attempting to persuade the Iranian leadership to demonstrate greater flexibility on the main stumbling blocks, and the Americans to soften their maximalist approaches and abandon their dialogue from a position of strength. Mutual concessions, as diplomatic arbitrators believe, could ultimately reverse the situation, paving the way for a resolution to the 40-day war and the achievement of compromise agreements to de-escalate the situation in the region. Otherwise, the situation could spiral out of control, and a new round of tensions, fraught with even more serious consequences, will become inevitable.

Anvar Azimov, diplomat and political scientist, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, PhD in History, Senior Researcher at the Eurasian Educational Institute of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook