The United States and Iran are scheduled to meet in Pakistan under that country's mediation, but major differences persist on the fundamentals of any peace deal. President Donald Trump has said proposals submitted by Tehran offered a "basis" for discussions, yet each side continues to press mutually incompatible demands for ending the war.
Summary of attendees and negotiating teams
On the Iranian side, the delegation expected in Islamabad will be led by Parliament Speaker Mohammed Baqer Qalibaf, alongside Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, the new secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. The U.S. delegation will be headed by Vice President J.D. Vance and is expected to include the White House Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law. Kushner and Witkoff were already engaged in the talks regarding Iran’s contested nuclear programme that were underway prior to the surprise attack on February 28 that ignited the wider conflict.
Where the parties stand
Tehran has circulated a 10-point proposal. Washington had previously offered a 15-point plan. The two texts show minimal overlap on some of the most sensitive issues, indicating substantial gaps negotiators will need to bridge.
Key points of divergence include Iran’s insistence on being permitted to enrich uranium, a demand that the United States has previously rejected and one that President Trump has termed non-negotiable. Iran’s 10-point draft also does not address its ballistic missile forces, an area where both Washington and Israel have demanded significant limitations.
Iran has publicly described its missile arsenal as non-negotiable, even as the extent of its remaining inventory after the course of the war is unclear. A Pakistani official familiar with the regional diplomatic exchanges said Tehran could expect to secure substantial elements of its agenda focused on reconstruction, reparations and the easing of sanctions, but that acceptance of uranium enrichment was not expected to be conceded.
Top issues on the Islamabad agenda
Earlier rounds of talks concentrated on Iran’s nuclear activities and its ballistic missiles. Those subjects are now competing for attention with the status of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime chokepoint through which roughly a fifth of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas typically transit.
Iran effectively closed the strait at the outset of the war on February 28, a move that has unsettled the global economy and contributed to higher oil prices. Under the terms Tehran has suggested for a permanent settlement, it would seek the right to levy a fee for ships transiting the strait - a passage that is 34 km (21 miles) wide at its narrowest point between Iran and Oman.
President Trump had warned of devastating consequences for Iran if Tehran did not agree to a ceasefire and reopen the waterway. As negotiations approach, there is no indication that Iran has lifted its blockade of the strait, which has caused what the reporting describes as the most severe disruption to global energy supplies in history. Iran has also stated there will be no deal as long as Israel continues strikes in Lebanon.
How the two plans compare
Iran’s Supreme National Security Council issued a statement asserting that Washington had accepted Iran’s 10-point plan in principle and that the United States had committed to several points, including non-aggression, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of enrichment, lifting all primary and secondary sanctions, termination of all U.N. Security Council and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from the region, and cessation of fighting on all fronts - explicitly including action against "the Islamic resistance in Lebanon."
By contrast, Israeli sources outlined the contents of the U.S. 15-point proposal that was previously transmitted to Tehran through Pakistan. That proposal reportedly sought removal of Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium, the halting of enrichment activity, significant constraints on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, and a cutoff of funding for Tehran’s regional allies.
As the delegations prepare to meet, President Trump has said he will keep U.S. military assets in the Middle East until a peace agreement with Iran is finalized, and he warned of substantial escalation in fighting if Iran does not comply with conditions he supports.
Prospects for a durable settlement
Although President Trump has proclaimed victory, the United States has not achieved several of the objectives he cited to justify the war from the outset - namely eliminating Iran’s ability to strike neighboring countries, dismantling its nuclear programme, and creating conditions that would make it simpler for internal Iranian dynamics to produce regime change.
Iran has signaled it is unlikely to yield on the core items Washington sought. Tehran has also indicated a capability and will to continue fighting if necessary, and it retains a form of economic leverage through control of or influence over the Strait of Hormuz - an asset that can affect an adversary that otherwise has superior conventional firepower.
Israel, Lebanon and the limits of a truce
Israel, engaged in a parallel campaign against Iran’s ally Hezbollah in Lebanon, regards Iran as an existential threat. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly expressed a desire for regime change in Iran - an outcome that would likely require boots on the ground and that carries no guarantee of post-conflict stability.
A principal point of contention in the talks is whether a ceasefire with Iran should encompass the conflict in Lebanon. The U.S. and Israel have maintained that Lebanon is not part of the planned agreement, while Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has insisted that a halt to hostilities in Lebanon is an essential condition for Tehran to accept any deal with Washington. Israel has said it agreed to a ceasefire with Iran but clarified that the arrangement did not include a halt to military operations in Lebanon.
Significance
How negotiators resolve the standoff over enrichment, missiles, transit rights through the Strait of Hormuz, and whether the truce must extend to Israel’s confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon will determine not only the immediate trajectory of the war but also longer-term regional security and global energy flows. The Islamabad talks therefore carry implications across military, diplomatic, and economic domains.