Tag: News – Al Jazeera

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.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“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”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

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.

The US restrictions on maritime navigation and transit in international waters are illegal, Iranian military says.

The Iranian military says an announced naval blockade on vessels by the United States in international waters would be illegal and amount to piracy, warning that no Gulf ports would be safe if its own were threatened.

The US military said it would begin a blockade of all Iranian ports on Monday at 14:00 GMT, after talks between the warring sides in Pakistan collapsed.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

President Donald Trump also announced on social media that the US would blockade the strategic Strait of Hormuz trade route, which he has been demanding that Tehran fully reopen.

An Iranian army statement on Monday said if the security of Iran’s “ports in the waters of the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea is threatened, no port in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea will be safe”, referring to the Gulf, which is also known as the Arabian Gulf.

“The restrictions imposed by criminal America on maritime navigation and transit in international waters are illegal and constitute an example of piracy,” said the statement issued by the Iranian military’s central command centre, Khatam al-Anbiya, that was read on state television.

The weekend’s failed talks dashed hopes of a swift deal to permanently end the war that has killed thousands and thrown the global economy into turmoil since it began in late February.

Despite the threats, the ceasefire between the US, Israel and Iran that entered into force last week has been holding with no indication that there would be an immediate resumption of the war.

Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for global oil and gas shipments, has been heavily restricted since the start of the war, with Iran allowing only a few vessels serving friendly countries such as China.

Oil prices, which had tumbled with the truce, jumped almost 8 percent on Monday, with both key WTI and Brent contracts, which are benchmarks, topping $100 a barrel.

The US Central Command said the planned blockade would be enforced “impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas, including all Iranian ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman”.

The military forces would not impede vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports, it added.

In a lengthy social media post on Sunday, Trump said his goal was to clear the strait of mines and reopen it to all shipping, but that Iran must not be allowed to profit from controlling the waterway.

China, US allies condemn move

China, Washington’s great power rival and a big importer of Iranian oil, also criticised the US plan.

“The Strait of Hormuz is an important international trade route for goods and energy, and maintaining its security, stability, and unimpeded flow is in the common interest of the international community,” Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Guo Jiakun said, urging Iran and the US not to reignite the war.

Among Washington’s NATO allies, much criticised by Trump for their reluctance to follow him to war, Spain’s Defence Minister Margarita Robles said the planned naval blockade “makes no sense”.

“It’s one more episode in this whole downward spiral into which we’ve been dragged,” she said.

In a BBC radio interview, United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Britain will not join the US blockade, adding that the UK “is not getting dragged” into the US-Israel war on Iran.

Islamabad, Pakistan – The capital woke up on Saturday to lockdown: Roads were sealed, checkpoints appeared, and more than 10,000 security personnel were deployed ahead of  ceasefire talks between the United States and Iran.

The Iranian delegation arrived late on Friday night, their movement swift and largely unseen. We followed the flight en route to Islamabad via Balochistan. A Pakistani air force plane quickly switched off its call sign inside Pakistani airspace. By the following afternoon, the Americans landed at Nur Khan Air Base, which India claimed to have damaged during the brief war last year.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

On the tarmac, three extraordinary tail fins stood out. One American, two Iranian. It was a small detail, but in a region defined by symbolism, not insignificant.

From the base, the motorcades moved along pre-cleared routes to the Serena Hotel, the venue of the talks. The property, which had been attacked by armed groups in the past, was vacated days earlier. Guests were asked to check out, floors secured, staff vetted. What remained was not a hotel, but a controlled diplomatic environment.

The stage was set for the first direct, high-level engagement between post-revolution Iran and the United States… on Pakistani soil.

‘To talk or not to talk’ was the question

Inside the negotiation room was expectedly a collision of two fundamentally different worldviews – an American “peace through strength” versus the Iranian “resistance with dignity.”

“This is a make-or-break moment for lasting peace,” Pakistani prime minister Shahbaz Sharif said the night before.

Nothing, it seemed, had been guaranteed. Ahead of the arrival, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, had publicly set conditions – no talks without movement on a ceasefire in Lebanon, and no progress without the unfreezing of Iranian assets abroad.

Iran wants the ceasefire to include the Lebanon front, where Israel has continued a brutal campaign, killing more than 2,000 people. Tehran is also seeking the unlocking of its frozen assets due to years of US sanctions, which have crippled its economy.

The message was clear: diplomacy, not dictation. Negotiations which could not be detached from the realities of the conflict.

Yet, within hours of both delegations landing, separate, bilateral engagements began. For Pakistani officials involved in the process, this was the breakthrough thaw.

This was not an unfamiliar setting, and the failures of the recent past lingered. Talks between Washington and Tehran have happened before – in Muscat, Vienna, Geneva and Abu Dhabi. But each round carried with it a familiar undertone: mistrust, layered over years of confrontation and broken commitments. But never before were they face-to-face and at this level – negotiators including the US vice president JD Vance and the speaker of the Iranian parliament Ghalibaf.

It was within this context that Islamabad’s role became significant. It was happening amid deepened mistrust. Iranian officials pointed to the killings of its officials, including security chief Ali Larijani, while negotiations were ongoing.

Pakistan managed what others couldn’t with geography, religion and regional relations. It has close ties with Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It shares a long and sensitive border with Iran. Its ports sit close to one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints – the Strait of Hormuz. And its relationship with China adds another layer of strategic relevance. Unlike several other mediators in the region, it does not host US military bases. Yet its powerful army chief Asim Munir is Donald Trump’s “favourite field marshal”

Taken together, these factors placed Islamabad in a position few others could claim – able to speak to all sides, without formally belonging to any.

The long night

Once the talks began, they did not pause for long. Officials described the 21 hours of talks as “continuous, but uneven”.

The first session lasted under two hours. It was followed by a pause, which was partly procedural, partly cultural. Dinner was served, but conversations continued, albeit without structure.

What followed after that was more intense: Multiple rounds, drafts exchanged, and positions restated. Behind the scenes, there had already been dozens of calls between leaders, red lines redrawn and tremendous pressure from capitals – Washington and Tehran.

Those familiar with the discussions say progress came in fragments – small areas of convergence, followed by immediate pushback elsewhere. At times, there were indications that a framework might be within reach. At others, the gaps appeared to widen.

“It was a cycle,” one person close to the process said.

Throughout, communication lines with capitals remained active. The American delegation was in repeated contact with Washington, including with President Donald Trump. Iranian negotiators, too, were reportedly relaying developments back home.

For Pakistan’s leadership – prime minister Sharif, foreign minister Ishaq Dar, and army chief Asim Munir – the days leading up to the talks had already been consumed by preparation. Officials say sleep had been scarce, and coordination was non-stop. The objective, they insist, was modest: not a final agreement, but the outline of one which prevents escalation.

Then it all stalled

By the time the final stretch began, expectations had shifted. There had been discussion of extending the talks into a second day. Iranian officials indicated they were willing to stay. But the American side chose to conclude – from the outside, it felt abrupt and shocking.

When JD Vance emerged, his assessment was direct. “We have been at it now for 21 hours,” he said. “The good news is that we’ve had substantive discussions. The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement.”

He framed the outcome in strategic terms. The United States, he said, had made its position clear – particularly on Iran’s nuclear programme.

“We need to see an affirmative commitment that they will not seek a nuclear weapon… not just now, but for the long term. We haven’t seen that yet”. He added that Washington had presented what he described as its “final and best offer”. Washington’s message was: We were flexible, they refused.

Iranian officials did not contest the duration or the intensity of the talks. But their interpretation differed sharply. Iran’s ambassador in Islamabad described the negotiations as “not an event, but a process” – one that had, in his words, “laid the foundation” for future engagement.

Among the issues cited were demands linked to the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear material and broader regional influence. And behind that measured language, the messaging hardened. State-affiliated outlets, including Fars and Tasnim, characterised the US position as excessive, arguing that Washington had sought concessions it had failed to secure through military pressure.

A spokesperson for Iran’s foreign ministry framed the talks in more ideological terms.“For us, diplomacy is a continuation of struggle,” he said, referencing what he described as past “transgressions” by the United States. At the same time, he left space for continuation – stating that progress would depend on “seriousness and good faith” from the other side.

The US had joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities last year.

For Pakistan, the public posture remained cautious. “We thank both sides for participating,” finance minister Dar said. “We hope they maintain a positive spirit. Pakistan will continue to facilitate”.

No victory claim, no reference to any failure – just continuity.

Privately, officials acknowledge the constraints. There are competing pressures – from within Iran, from within the US, and from regional actors with their own stakes in the outcome. One government source described these as “detractors on all sides,” capable of influencing both pace and direction.

Among those frequently mentioned, though not publicly, is Israel and its prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Some point to a “Zionist” broader strategic calculus in a prolonged regional confrontation. Views which reflect the wider geopolitical layering around the talks.

“There are detractors in Tehran. Detractors in Washington. But the biggest impediment to peace is Israel — which benefits from perpetual conflict,” a senior source told us.

The day after

By the following day, Islamabad had not fully returned to normal. As security remained in place, traffic diversions continued and the Serena Hotel stayed under tight control. There were indications – unconfirmed, but repeated – that lower-level contacts had not entirely stopped.

At the Convention Centre, where journalists had been gathered during the talks, the atmosphere had been markedly different. Large screens, stable connections, free-flowing chai, coffee and food – but little in the way of substantive information. In a country where unofficial comments often find their way into headlines, the absence of leaks was notable. “It was unusually disciplined,” one reporter said.

As the aircraft departed, carrying the delegations out of Islamabad, the outcome remains unchanged.

But in a conflict defined by distrust, ending with no agreement, no framework, but also – no breakdown; is considered positive diplomatic progress.

The door closed for now, but it is not locked.

Vessels will still be able to transit Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports, says CENTCOM; Iran warns any approaching military vessels will be breaching ceasefire.

The United States military has announced it will begin blockading all Iranian ports on Monday, its latest move to exert pressure on Tehran after marathon peace talks in Pakistan concluded without a deal.

In a statement on Sunday evening, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said the blockade would apply to “all maritime traffic entering and exiting Iranian ports” from 10am Eastern Time (14:00 GMT) on April 13. That includes “vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas”, including those on the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

However, US forces “will not impede freedom of ⁠navigation for vessels transiting the Strait ⁠of Hormuz to and ⁠from non-Iranian ports,” CENTCOM said, in an apparent scaling back from President Donald Trump’s earlier threat to blockade the entire strait and pursue ships paying tolls to Iran.

“There are a lot of questions here,” said Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro from Washington, DC, pointing to “conflicting information” coming out of the US side.

“Trump said the blockade would target any and all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. But CENTCOM is saying this would only target ships going to or from Iranian ports.”

The price of US crude oil jumped 8 percent to $104.24 a barrel after the US blockade threat. Brent crude oil, the international standard, increased 7 percent to $102.29.

Iran has essentially taken control over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for the global energy market, since the US and Israel launched a war against the country on February 28. Traffic through the waterway has since slowed to a trickle, nearly paralysing about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas shipments.

Iran has continued to move its own vessels through the strait, while allowing limited passage of ships from other countries. Iranian officials have discussed setting up a toll system after the fighting ends.

In a statement responding to Trump’s blockade threat, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said any approaching military vessels would be in breach of a US-Iran ceasefire – meant to be in effect until April 22 – and “will be dealt with severely”.

The US-declared blockade appears to be triggered by the failure of the talks in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, raising fears of renewed fighting.

Iranian officials blamed the US side for failing to reach a deal, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Abbas Araghchi saying US negotiators shifted the “goalposts” and obstructed efforts when a memorandum of understanding was “just inches away”.

Zohreh Kharazmi, an associate professor at the University of Tehran, said the US “is not in a position to dictate” to Iranians how to behave, or “to choose which vessels may pass”.

“If this blockade becomes a contest between the resilience of the Islamic Republic and the resilience of global markets, it will not take long to see who is losing,” she said, adding that Iran “is ready for a prolonged war”.

“Technically, they [the US] cannot control the situation. With Hollywood-style strategies, they cannot prevail in this battleground.”

Three elderly victims were wounded at the transit hub, and the alleged attacker is in critical condition, police said.

A man wielding a machete was fatally shot by police in New York City’s Grand Central station, after allegedly wounding three elderly individuals, according to the local police department.

Police responded to a call about a man with a knife at the iconic transit hub at 9:40am United States Eastern time (13:40 GMT) on Saturday.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

One police officer opened fire, striking the man, who was taken to a local hospital in critical condition.

Three individuals — an 84-year-old man, a 70-year-old woman and a 65-year-old man — were wounded before police arrived at the scene, according to a New York Police Department (NYPD) spokesperson.

All three victims were hospitalised in stable condition. Further details of the incident were not immediately available.

In a statement, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said the attacker later died from the wound.

He said police had opened fire when the man “did not drop the machete”.

“I’m grateful to the NYPD for their quick response and for preventing additional violence,” he said.

“The NYPD is conducting an internal investigation and will release body-worn camera footage, as it does in all incidents involving the discharge of an officer’s firearm.”

The suspect’s identity and what motivated the attack were not immediately known.

Grand Central station is one of the best known and travelled transit hubs in the United States.

Located in Midtown, Manhattan, it is a nexus of several New York City subway lines, as well as the regional Metro-North Railroad system.

Known for its Beaux-Arts architecture, the terminal is also one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world, with an average of 750,000 travellers and visitors a day.

Trump says Washington will not accept Iran’s imposition of a de facto toll booth system in the critical waterway.

United States President Donald Trump has said the Strait of Hormuz will reopen “fairly soon” with or without Iran’s assistance, as Tehran’s effective blockade of the waterway continues to roil global energy supplies.

Speaking to reporters on Friday in advance of peace talks between US and Iranian officials in Pakistan, Trump said the US would “open up the Gulf” and that other countries were ready to “help out”.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“It won’t be easy,” Trump said.

“I would say this: We will have that open fairly soon,” he added.

Trump, who did not elaborate on how Washington would unblock the critical maritime chokepoint, also said he would not accept Iran’s imposition of a de facto toll booth system in the strait.

Tehran has indicated that it intends to charge vessels fees for safe passage even in the event that a deal is reached with the US to end the war.

“If they are doing that, we’re not going to let that happen,” Trump told reporters before boarding Air Force One at Joint Base Andrews in Camp Springs, Maryland.

Trump said ensuring Iran does not possess nuclear weapons is the priority in any agreement, and the strait would open “automatically”.

“No nuclear weapons, that’s 99 percent of it,” Trump said.

“The strait will open up,” he added. “If we just left … otherwise they make no money.”

Despite the announcement of a two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran on Tuesday, shipping in the strait remains at an effective standstill, disrupting approximately one-fifth of global oil and natural gas flows.

Only two vessels passed through the strait on Friday, down from five the previous day, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Since the start of the ceasefire, just 22 ships with their automatic identification system turned on have exited the strait, according to the market intelligence provider, compared with about 135 daily transits before the war.

More than 600 vessels, including 325 tankers, are still stranded in the Gulf due to the blockage of the strait, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence.

US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf are on Saturday set to lead negotiations in Islamabad aimed at securing a permanent end to the war.

The US and Iran have offered conflicting messages on the agreed-upon terms for the negotiations, including the contents of a 10-point plan put forward by Tehran.

The Brazilian government has announced a new security partnership with the United States to combat criminal networks, as well as the illicit traffic of drugs and weapons.

In a social media post on Friday, Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called the deal a breakthrough.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“Brazil and the United States today established unprecedented cooperation between the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service and US Customs,” he wrote on social media.

“We will intensify the fight against international arms and drug trafficking through concrete actions.”

Some of those “concrete actions”, he said, will include “real-time data sharing, rigorous cargo tracking and joint operations to intercept illicit shipments”.

Separately, a statement from the Brazilian Revenue Service said the deal would result in the “continuous flow of information from US authorities to their Brazilian counterparts”.

The operation, according to Lula’s government, will be called the DESARMA programme.

Brazil’s Finance Minister Dario Durigan hailed the collaboration with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as an “important step in strengthening international cooperation” against crime.

“This initiative will integrate intelligence and joint operations to intercept arms and narcotics trafficking, thereby reinforcing security and coordinated action between the two countries,” he said on social media.

Friday’s deal is the latest collaboration inked between the administration of US President Donald Trump and a government in Latin America.

Trump has been on a campaign to crack down on criminal networks throughout the Western Hemisphere, and he has reached out to regional right-wing governments to join his “Shield of the Americas” coalition.

But left-wing leaders like Lula were absent from a March summit kicking off the “Shield of the Americas”.

Still, the Trump administration has pressured governments like Lula’s to take more “aggressive” action towards crime, including through military deployments.

For his part, Lula has sought to limit the illicit flow of US weapons across its borders.

In announcing the DESARMA initiative, the Brazilian government revealed that, in the last 12 months alone, it had seized 1,168 illegally imported arms and weapons parts, mainly sent from the US state of Florida.

Those weapons largely end up in the hands of criminal networks, according to the government.

Differing approaches

But Trump and Lula have been at loggerheads in recent months over how best to address crime in the Americas.

Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has taken a hardline approach, labelling multiple Latin American gangs and cartels as “foreign terrorist organisations”, a designation that had traditionally been reserved for armed groups with political aims, like al-Qaeda.

He has used such labels as justification to carry out deadly attacks in the name of national security.

Since September 2, the US has conducted at least 47 lethal strikes on maritime vessels travelling in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, in what legal experts condemn as extrajudicial killings.

At least 147 people have died, their identities never publicly confirmed.

The Trump administration has also carried out what it described as a “joint military and law enforcement raid” in Venezuela on January 3, in the name of confronting drug trafficking.

The operation culminated in dozens of deaths, all either Cuban or Venezuelan, as well as the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. They currently await trial in New York on drug-trafficking and weapons possession charges.

The Trump administration has reportedly argued that it is in “armed conflict” with Latin American criminal networks, whom it considers “unlawful combatants”.

While Lula’s government has taken action against such networks within Brazil, it has called on the Trump administration not to use the “foreign terrorist” label for entities within its borders.

In recent months, for instance, reports have emerged that Trump is considering designating two Brazilian criminal networks: the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC) and the Comando Vermelho (CV).

But in an interview on March 25 with the Brazilian news organisation G1, Brazil’s Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said he conveyed his opposition directly to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“I spoke on the phone with Secretary Marco Rubio and told him that the Brazilian government is against this classification,” Vieira said.

Lula himself has repeatedly called on the Trump administration to respect the sovereignty of Latin American countries, including his own.

“Brazil is a sovereign nation with independent institutions and will not accept any form of tutelage,” Lula posted last year after Trump threatened the country with steep tariffs, in protest against the prosecution of former right-wing leader Jair Bolsonaro.

Lula is expected to travel to Washington, DC, in the coming months to visit Trump.

The case is to overturn the temporary tariffs that Trump imposed after the Supreme Court struck down his earlier ones.

The centrepiece of United States President Donald Trump’s economic policy — sweeping taxes on global imports — is under legal assault again.

A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade, a specialised court in New York, is hearing oral arguments on Friday in an attempt to overturn the temporary tariffs Trump turned to after the Supreme Court in February struck down his preferred choice — even bigger, even more sweeping tariffs.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Several US states and small businesses have said the 10 percent global import tax that Trump imposed in February sidesteps the Supreme Court ruling that invalidated most of his previous tariffs.

A group of 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses sued the Trump administration to stop the new tariffs, which went into effect on February 24.

Oregon’s lawyer Brian Marshall told the judges they should block the 10 percent tariffs rather than let them expire on the normal 150-day timeline, to keep Trump from invoking a variety of laws to keep them indefinitely.

“[If] we have a successive series where there’s always tariffs in place, that’s a problem,” Marshall said.

Marshall also said the tariffs were based on archaic authority that was meant to protect the US dollar from sudden depreciation in the 1970s, when dollars could be exchanged for gold reserves held in Fort Knox.

He said that authority was meant to resolve significant “balance-of-payments deficits”, and Trump cannot repurpose it to address routine trade deficits.

Tariffs, a central pillar

Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign policy in his second term, claiming sweeping authority to issue tariffs without input from Congress.

The administration has said that global tariffs are a legal and appropriate response to a persistent trade deficit caused by the fact that the US imports more goods than it exports.

“President Trump is lawfully using the executive powers granted to him by Congress to address our country’s balance of payments crisis,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

Trump imposed the new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorises duties of up to 15 percent for up to 150 days on imports during “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits” or to prevent imminent depreciation of the dollar.

The states and small businesses argue that the Trade Act’s tariff authority is meant only to address short-term monetary emergencies, and routine trade deficits do not match the economic definition of “balance-of-payments deficits.”

Trump announced the new tariffs on February 20, the same day the Supreme Court handed him a stinging defeat when ⁠it struck down a broad swath of tariffs he had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), ruling that the law did not give him the power he claimed.

No US president before Trump had used the IEEPA or Section 122 to impose tariffs. The two lawsuits do not challenge other Trump tariffs made under more traditional legal authority, such as recent tariffs on steel, aluminium, and copper imports.

Expectations for the upcoming talks between the United States and Iran in Pakistan are understandably modest. There is even a risk that the meeting won’t take place at all.

Yet, paradoxically, the failure of the talks may still shift the situation in a positive direction. Indeed, the true measure of the ceasefire’s success may not be whether it yields a lasting accord with Iran. It may lie instead in what it forestalls: Even in the absence of a durable deal, Washington may have found a way to avoid going back into a futile war.

Tehran’s reaction to the talks has been ambivalent. The government has cast the ceasefire as a victory, projecting strength at home and abroad. But many voices close to the security establishment are less sanguine, warning that Iran may have sacrificed momentum and weakened its deterrent posture by settling for anything short of a complete and immediate end to hostilities.

Still, whatever the internal debate, there is little dispute about one point: The ceasefire, as it stands, reflects Iran’s terms more than America’s.

Let us consider what the ceasefire entails. The negotiations will proceed on the basis of Tehran’s 10-point proposal, not US President Donald Trump’s 15-point plan for Iranian capitulation. As part of this, Iran will retain control of the Strait of Hormuz during the truce – continuing to collect transit fees from passing vessels.

Washington appears to have conceded two critical points: That it tacitly acknowledges Iran’s authority over the strait, and that Tehran holds the upper hand in setting the terms of the talks. Trump himself seemed to signal as much, describing the Iranian proposal on social media as a “workable” foundation.

Unsurprisingly, this has raised eyebrows in Washington, given the scope of Iran’s demands. They range from recognition of Iran’s continued control over the strait and acceptance of uranium enrichment, to the lifting of all US primary and secondary sanctions – as well as United Nations sanctions – to a withdrawal of US combat forces from the region, and a comprehensive ceasefire that would extend to Israel’s operations in Lebanon and Gaza.

It is difficult to imagine Washington agreeing to such terms in full. Just as uncertain is how far Iran is willing to bend – whether it would pare back its demands or hold firm on a maximalist position.

The geopolitical consequences would be profound if the final outcome reflects these demands. Yet it is equally important to recognise that Tehran is unlikely to wield control of the Strait of Hormuz as a blunt instrument of coercion. Rather, it is more likely to use that leverage to rebuild economic ties with Asian and European partners – countries that once traded extensively with Iran but were pushed out of its market over the past 15 years by US sanctions. Even so, this would be a bitter pill for Iran’s regional rivals.

Trump, however, has already hinted he may be prepared to accept such an arrangement, noting that the US itself is not dependent on the oil that flows through the strait. The burden, in other words, would fall far more heavily on Asia and Europe.

Tehran’s insistence that the ceasefire extend to Israel may prove the most difficult obstacle, given that the latter is not party to the talks and has long resisted being bound by agreements it did not help shape.

For Iran, this demand is rooted in three considerations. First, solidarity with the peoples of Gaza and Lebanon is not merely rhetorical; it is central to Tehran’s regional posture. Having been widely perceived as abandoning these constituencies in 2024, Iran can ill afford another rupture that would further weaken the so-called “axis of resistance”.

Second, continued Israeli bombardment risks reigniting confrontation between Israel and Iran – a cycle that has already flared twice since October 7, 2023. The linkage between these arenas is not only real but widely acknowledged, including in Western rhetoric that casts Iran as the hub of resistance to Israeli and US policies, expressed through its network of allied groups in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Yemen. From Tehran’s vantage point, a durable halt to its own conflict with Israel cannot be separated from ending Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. As such, it is not an aspirational add-on but a necessary condition.

Perhaps more consequentially, tying Israel to the ceasefire is a test of Washington’s willingness – and ability – to restrain its closest regional ally. If Trump cannot, or would not, do so, the value of any ceasefire with Washington comes into question. An agreement that leaves Israel free to reignite hostilities – and the US unable to keep itself from being drawn back in – offers little assurance of stability. Under such conditions, the utility of a ceasefire with the Trump administration diminishes sharply.

Whatever the outcome of the talks in Islamabad, the strategic landscape has already been altered. Trump’s failed war has weakened the credibility of US military threats. Washington can still brandish force, but after a costly and futile conflict, such warnings no longer carry the same weight.

A new reality now shapes US-Iran diplomacy: Washington can no longer dictate terms. Any agreement would require genuine compromise – patient, disciplined diplomacy that tolerates ambiguity, qualities rarely associated with Trump. It may also necessitate the involvement of other major powers, particularly China, to help stabilise the process and reduce the risk of a relapse into conflict.

All of this argues for tempered expectations. Yet even if the talks collapse – and even if Israel resumes attacks on Iran – it does not automatically follow that the US would be drawn back into war. There is little reason to believe a second round would end differently, or that it would not again leave Iran positioned to disrupt the global economy. No wonder Tehran feels confident that its deterrence has been restored.

The more plausible outcome is a new, non-negotiated status quo – one not codified through formal agreement but sustained by mutual constraint. The US would stay out of the war; Iran would continue to exert control over traffic through the Strait of Hormuz; Israel and Iran would continue a low-level conflict. A full-scale US-Iran war would be, for the moment, averted.

Such an equilibrium would reflect not enough political will to reach a comprehensive settlement, but sufficient shared interest to avoid a wider conflagration – and a degree of tolerance for an arrangement in which both sides could claim partial victory.

Iran could plausibly claim it weathered the combined might of Israel and the US while emerging with its geopolitical position intact – if not strengthened. Trump, for his part, could argue that he avoided another forever war, steadied energy markets, and secured tactical gains by degrading Iran’s military capabilities.

So long as both sides cling to a narrative of victory, a fragile equilibrium – absent full-scale war – may yet endure.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.