Blog

Islamabad, Pakistan – More than 12 hours of face-to-face negotiations between the United States and Iran ended without agreement in Islamabad on Sunday, leaving a fragile two-week ceasefire as the only barrier between diplomacy and a return to war.

Pakistan, which spent weeks positioning itself as a mediator and succeeded in bringing both sides into the same room, emerged with its role intact. But officials acknowledge the harder phase now begins — getting American and Iranian negotiators back into talks before their differences explode into full-fledged war again.

“Pakistan has been and will continue to play its role to facilitate engagements and dialogue between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America in the days to come,” Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said in a statement after the conclusion of the talks.

The talks, the highest-level direct engagement between Washington and Tehran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, faltered over differences surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme.

“The simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” said US Vice President JD Vance, who led the American delegation alongside special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

However, Vance left a narrow opening for the resumption of talks.

“We leave here with a very simple proposal, a method of understanding that is our final and best offer. We’ll see if the Iranians accept it,” Vance said, tapping the podium for emphasis, before ending his brief remarks, which lasted for less than five minutes.

Pakistani and Iranian sources confirmed that the Iranian delegation met senior Pakistani officials later on Sunday before departing for Tehran, though details of those discussions remain unclear.

What is clear is that Pakistan isn’t giving up yet.

Washington’s red lines

US officials said that Iran had entered negotiations misreading its leverage, believing it held advantages that, in Washington’s assessment, it did not.

According to these officials, Vance spent much of his time during the talks correcting what they described as Iranian misperceptions about the US position — asserting that no deal would be possible without a full commitment on the nuclear issue.

Officials also suggested that Trump’s subsequent announcement of a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz was not an impulsive reaction, but a pre-planned step aimed at removing the waterway as an Iranian bargaining tool and forcing the nuclear issue back to the centre of any future talks.

But the US officials, speaking on background, also acknowledged that the gulf in the positions between Washington and Tehran that they failed to bridge extended to issues beyond Iran’s nuclear programme.

In essence, they said, the two sides failed to agree on six key points: ending all uranium enrichment; dismantling major enrichment facilities; removing Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium; accepting a broader regional security framework involving US allies; ending funding for groups Washington designates as “terrorist” organisations, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; and fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz without tolls.

Hours after the talks ended, Trump acknowledged partial progress, but underscored the central impasse.

“The meeting went well, most points were agreed to, but the only point that really mattered, NUCLEAR, was not,” he wrote on Truth Social.

“Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump said. “Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION.”

Iran has effectively controlled access to the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of global oil supplies pass, since the US-Israeli attacks began on February 28.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has imposed what analysts describe as a de facto toll system, requiring vessels to secure clearance codes and transit under escort through a controlled corridor.

The disruption has pushed oil prices above $100 per barrel at times, unsettling global markets and placing sustained pressure on energy-importing countries across Asia and Europe.

Tehran has framed its control of the strait as both a security measure and a key negotiating lever, one it has shown little willingness to relinquish without a broader settlement.

Tehran’s point of view

Iran’s account of the breakdown differed sharply.

In a post on X early on April 13, after returning to Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said his country had engaged in “good faith”, only to face shifting demands.

“When just inches away from an Islamabad MoU, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade,” he wrote. “Zero lessons learned. Good will begets good will. Enmity begets enmity.”

The reference to an “Islamabad MoU”, a memorandum of understanding, was the clearest public signal yet that the two sides had come closer to a formal agreement than either government had previously acknowledged.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the country’s delegation, said his team had proposed “forward-looking initiatives”, but failed to secure trust.

“Due to the experiences of the two previous wars, we have no trust in the opposing side,” he wrote on Sunday.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei also pointed to partial progress but unresolved differences.

“On some issues we actually reached mutual understanding, but there was a gap over two or three important issues and ultimately the talks didn’t result in an agreement,” he said.

Tehran’s key demands, including an end to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, the release of $6bn in frozen assets, guarantees on its nuclear programme and the right to charge vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz, remained unmet.

Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, however, offered a more measured view — suggesting that Tehran was not closing the window on talks.

“The Islamabad Talks is not an event but a process,” he wrote in his message on X on Sunday. “The Islamabad Talks laid the foundation for a diplomatic process that, if trust and will are strengthened, can create a sustainable framework for the interests of all parties.”

Pakistan’s balancing act

For Pakistan, analysts say, the outcome represents a setback but not a failure.

Officials were careful to describe the talks as “an important opening step in a continuing diplomatic process”, stressing that issues of such complexity cannot be resolved in a single round.

The emphasis, they said, was on keeping the channel open.

Muhammad Obaidullah, a former Pakistan Navy commodore who has served in Iran as a diplomat, said expectations of a breakthrough were always unrealistic.

“The mere fact of bringing both parties face to face is a significant diplomatic achievement in itself,” he told Al Jazeera. “The diplomacy is not dead.”

Ishtiaq Ahmad, professor emeritus of international relations at Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, went further.

“The talks did not collapse; they concluded without agreement but with a defined US offer on the table and the channel still intact,” he said.

“Pakistan’s role was to move the crisis from escalation to structured engagement, which it achieved. The absence of convergence reflects structural differences between the US and Iran, not a failure of mediation.”

Both Trump and Iranian officials have praised Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir for their efforts to secure the ceasefire, and for hosting the talks in Islamabad. That, say analysts, suggests that they remain open to further Pakistan-brokered negotiations.

Sahar Baloch, a Germany-based scholar of Iran, said that trust remains Pakistan’s most valuable asset.

“The real test of credibility is not preventing breakdowns, but remaining relevant after them,” she said.

Fragile ceasefire

The immediate threat to Pakistan’s role comes from the evolving situation in the Strait of Hormuz and in Lebanon.

Iran has already warned that continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon could render negotiations meaningless. Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has framed such attacks as a direct challenge to the ceasefire.

Trump’s blockade announcement now adds pressure from a second front.

Ahmad, a former Pakistan chair at Oxford University, warned that a collapse of the truce would sharply narrow diplomatic options.

“If the ceasefire collapses, the immediate consequence is the loss of the diplomatic window,” he said. “A second round becomes far more difficult because both sides would return to negotiating under active escalation, where positions tend to harden rather than converge.”

Obaidullah drew a historical parallel with the US naval quarantine of Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis. What if China were to use its own ships to import Iranian oil? Would the US attack them?

“The world will again be watching who blinks first,” Obaidullah said. “However, it may turn into a far greater conflict if neither side does.”

The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 brought the US and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war, after Washington discovered Moscow had installed nuclear missiles on Cuban soil, within striking distance of the American mainland.

The US blocked the Soviets from providing more equipment to Cuba, and eventually, a diplomatic settlement was reached, with the Soviets agreeing to withdraw the missiles in exchange for a US pledge not to invade Cuba.

Baloch, the Berlin-based scholar, agreed that the situation remains volatile.

“The ceasefire risks becoming more symbolic than substantive,” she said. “But paradoxically, escalation can sometimes force a return to talks, even if under more urgent and less favourable conditions.”

What is the road ahead?

Pakistan’s room for manoeuvring is also shaped by its economic fragility.

The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz has driven up energy prices, compounding pressures on an economy already under strain before the conflict.

Ahmad said this creates both urgency and limits.

“Economic exposure, especially to energy shocks and external financing, creates urgency for Pakistan to prevent a prolonged conflict,” he said.

“But it also reinforces a constraint: Pakistan cannot afford escalation with either side. Its leverage is not coercive; it is positional. It comes from being the only channel acceptable to both sides, not from the ability to impose outcomes,” Ahmad said.

Eight days remain until the end of the initial two-week truce, a window Pakistani officials said privately represents a genuine opportunity for further technical and political alignment, if both sides choose to use it.

Ahmad suggested that any breakthrough would depend on creating a sequence of steps acceptable to both sides.

“The US is asking for early nuclear commitments; Iran is asking for guarantees and relief first,” he said.

Pakistan’s role, he added, would be to help “structure this sequencing, keep both sides engaged, and prevent breakdown at each stage”.

Islamabad won’t be the one drafting a deal itself, he emphasised, noting, “At this point, maintaining the channel is as important as the substance of the deal itself.”

United States President Donald Trump’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after talks in Islamabad between Washington and Tehran ended without a deal is a substantial escalation in the war on Iran, analysts say.

In a social media post on Sunday, Trump said the US Navy “will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz”.

The blockade began at 10am Washington, DC, time (14:00 GMT) on Monday.

Trump’s comments have raised concerns about the status of the two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran announced last week.

Chris Featherstone, a political scientist at the University of York, told Al Jazeera that Trump’s threat to blockade the Strait of Hormuz is “absolutely an escalation” in the US and Israel’s war on Iran.

“Trump is using the threat of the blockade as a tool in the negotiations with Iran. Trump has said Iran holds no cards, and this attempt to leverage a blockade on Iran would constitute an attempt to further pressure Iran to comply with US goals in the negotiations,” he said.

What could the blockade look like? Here’s what we know:

What sort of blockade is the US threatening?

Shortly after the US and Israel began strikes on Iran on February 28, Iran essentially took control of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the global energy market. Before the war began, 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies were shipped through the strait.

After the Pakistan-brokered ceasefire came into force on Wednesday, Tehran confirmed it would allow shipping through the Strait of Hormuz for the duration of the two-week agreement, easing a disruption that had sent global oil and gas prices soaring.

However, it has been unclear whether Iran has been collecting fees for passage during the ceasefire. During the war, only a few ships from specific countries considered friendly to Iran and those that paid tolls were granted safe passage.

After weekend talks in Pakistan ended without a deal, Trump threatened to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and also accused Iran of “extortion”. He added that the US Navy would hunt down and interdict ships in international waters that had paid Iran a toll to traverse the strait.

Later, the US military said it would block all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports, including those in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

The US ‌military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), which has responsibility for operations in the Middle East, told the Reuters news agency that the US ⁠military ⁠will enforce a blockade in the Gulf of Oman and ⁠the Arabian Sea east of the Strait of ⁠Hormuz and it will apply to all vessels regardless of flag.

“Any vessel entering or departing the blockaded ⁠area without authorisation is subject to ⁠interception, diversion and capture,” it said.

“The blockade will not impede neutral transit passage ‌through the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian ‌destinations.”

Iran’s armed forces, however, said the US “imposition of restrictions on the movement of vessels in international waters is an illegal act and amounts to piracy”.

Jason Chuah, professor of maritime law at City St George’s, University of London, and the Maritime Institute of Malaysia, told Al Jazeera that Washington’s actions wouldn’t be a classic blockade but a case of “sanctions with warships doing the bidding of President Trump”.

“It would be much more like a steady pattern of stopping, boarding and seizing vessels thought to be linked to Iran, essentially sanctions enforcement at sea,” he said.

Is this legal under international maritime law?

Chuah said the legality of such a blockade by the US is “tricky”.

“The United States is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but that does not mean it is free to blockade as it sees fit,” he said. “The basic rules about freedom of navigation and passage through key waterways are widely accepted as customary international law, so they bind states whether they’ve signed the treaty or not.”

He added: “Now, if you want to call something a blockade in legal terms, you’re really in the territory of the law of armed conflict at sea – think the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. That, however, assumes you’re in an actual armed conflict, that you’ve declared the blockade, that it’s effective and that it’s applied even-handedly to neutral ships. That framework sets a high lawfulness bar for blockades.”

Chuah said that even if Trump uses sanctions as a justification for Washington’s actions regarding Iranian ports, it does not fully resolve the legal issues.

“Even quite robust domestic sanctions don’t automatically give you the right under international law to stop foreign ships on the high seas without consent or backing from the United Nations Security Council. At best, sanctions may justify why you act but not always where you can act,” he said.

Will other countries join the US in the blockade?

So far, only the United Kingdom has clearly stated that it will not join Trump’s blockade of Iranian ports.

In an interview with BBC 5 Live on Monday, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he is focusing on reopening the Strait of Hormuz “as quickly as possible” to reduce global energy prices.

“We’re not supporting the blockade, and all of the marshalling diplomatically, politically and capability, … that’s all focused, from our point of view, on getting the strait fully open,” he said.

Meanwhile, China has urged calm on all sides.

Keeping the critical waterway safe, stable and unimpeded serves the common interests of the international community, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Guo Jiakun said, adding that China stands ready to work with all sides to safeguard energy security and supplies.

Featherstone noted that one of the standout features of the US-Israel war on Iran has been how many US allies, such as the UK, have been unwilling to get involved.

“Given this blockade would be occurring in the midst of the negotiations over a ceasefire, risking the talks falling apart, it’s unlikely any allies would want to get involved now,” he said.

“As with other elements of this war, the [US] administration hasn’t outlined the purpose of this potential blockade. US allies will likely want to know the purpose of the blockade before they commit and risk reprisals,” he added.

How could a US blockade hurt Iran?

Even though Iran has become accustomed to US sanctions and has continued to function during the war, a blockade like this could inflict more damage on Iran’s economy.

The unified command of the Iranian armed forces has said ports in the Gulf and the Sea of Oman are “either for everyone or for no one”, state broadcaster IRIB reported.

“The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran consider defending the legal rights of our country a natural and legal duty and, accordingly, exercising the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the territorial waters of our country is the natural right of the Iranian nation,” IRIB quoted Iran’s military as stating.

“Enemy-affiliated vessels” will not have the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz while other vessels will be allowed passage, subject to regulations by Tehran, the statement said.

“The criminal US’s imposition of restrictions on the movement of vessels in international waters is an illegal act and amounts to piracy.”

If the security of the ports is threatened, no port in the region “will be safe”, the statement said.

Reporting from Doha, Qatar, Al Jazeera’s diplomatic editor James Bays said Washington’s blockade may seek to hit the Iranian economy, which has been doing well despite the war by continuing to get its oil supply through the Strait of Hormuz.

“It’s almost a race to the damage on Iran’s economy, a country that’s had sanctions since 1979, that’s very economically resilient although it has deep economic problems,” he said.

Featherstone said Iran is relatively used to the US having a stranglehold on its economy.

“Iran has experienced enormous US sanctions for decades, and for most of that time, the US sanctions regimes have prevented any nation that trades with the US from trading with Iran,” he said.

“However, after the extent of the US and Israeli strikes on Iran, this would impact their ability to rebuild,” he added.

What will happen to Iranian mines in the strait?

On Wednesday, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) released a map of the Strait of Hormuz showing a safe route for ships to follow through the strait, avoiding mines it has laid.

The map appears to direct ships farther north towards the Iranian coast and away from the traditional route closer to the coast of Oman.

In a statement, the IRGC said all vessels must use the new map for navigation due to “the likelihood of the presence of various types of anti-ship mines in the main traffic zone”.

In his Truth Social post on Sunday about the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said US forces will begin clearing the mines that Iran has placed in the strait and added that NATO countries like the UK would help in the process.

But on Monday, Starmer told BBC 5 Live that while the UK has “minesweeping” capacities, it would not get involved in “operational matters”.

Meanwhile, Japan said it has yet to decide whether to deploy its Self-Defence Forces for minesweeping operations in the Strait of Hormuz.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara told reporters that Japan is urging progress towards a comprehensive understanding between the US and Iran.

“What is most important is that de-escalation, including securing the safety of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, is actually achieved,” Kihara said, according to the Kyodo News agency.

What does Trump’s blockade mean for shipping in the strait?

During the US-Israel war on Iran, Tehran has allowed a small number of ships from certain countries it considers “friendly nations”, such as India, China, Japan, Turkiye and Pakistan, to pass through the strait.

Some vessels that also paid a toll to Iran were allowed to pass. At least two tolls for ships are believed to have been paid in Chinese yuan in what appears to be a strategy to weaken the US dollar and avoid US sanctions. China, which buys 80 percent of Iran’s oil, already pays Tehran in yuan.

On Friday, Iran said it was considering a proposal to charge future tolls in its own currency, the rial.

Chuah told Al Jazeera that the effects of Washington’s blockade of Iranian ports would spill over quickly to Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Turkish and other countries’ shipping.

“You don’t have to be Iranian to get caught up in it [the blockade]. If there’s any Iranian link in the cargo, financing or ownership chain, you’re suddenly in the risk zone,” he said.

He warned that insurance premiums will likely rise, making global banks nervous. He said the global tanker market will also start to fragment into separate risk tiers.

“The moment interdictions begin, neutral shipping starts to feel a lot less neutral,” he said.

He added that the bigger picture of such a blockade is also worrying.

“If major powers start routinely stopping ships based on who they’re linked to rather than where they are or what they’re doing, that chips away at the stability of the whole system.
The real issue isn’t just Iran – it’s what this does to the rules everyone else relies on,” he said.