Can Pakistan deliver a US-Iran deal – or will another power take the lead?

After threatening to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” a few hours before the deadline he set for Iran, US President Donald Trump suddenly announced a two-week ceasefire that continues to this day, though it remains fragile. Throughout this time, the White House has been urgently pushing the narrative about an active negotiation process with Iran, which is supposedly yielding results. Washington still talks about progress and work on a framework agreement, though Tehran has accused Washington of violations and the US military remains ready to resume combat operations at any moment. 

Tehran’s skepticism is understandable: On two previous occasions, negotiations with the Trump administration only brought about an escalation of the conflict. During the hot phase of the war, Tehran publicly refuted Trump’s claims about forthcoming negotiations, labeling the reports misleading and false. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has frequently been mentioned in the Western media as a negotiator on the Iranian side, said Washington used fabricated reports of talks to manipulate the oil markets. This is difficult to dispute; indeed, as soon as Trump mentioned negotiations with Tehran, oil prices began to drop. While they didn’t return to the $72 per barrel mark seen just before the start of the conflict on February 28, they demonstrated a positive trend. 

According to Tehran, Trump’s repeated statements about negotiations serve not to initiate dialogue with Iran but rather to project an image that the White House is in control of the escalation, holds the diplomatic initiative, and if necessary, can present any interim outcome as the president’s personal success. In other words, the public emphasis on negotiations appears to be an effort to create a political exit strategy – essentially a way to emerge unscathed, even if no significant strategic breakthrough occurs. This interpretation aligns with how the Trump administration intensifies its rhetoric while simultaneously speaking of productive contact.

The international media quickly picked up on this. However, the question of who could become a mediator between Washington and Tehran is no longer a priority. Most media outlets have agreed that the talks will probably be held in Pakistan. And indeed, Islamabad mediated the ceasefire, which considerably increased Pakistan’s political weight. As a result, the focus of the discussion has shifted. Instead of wondering whether negotiations are possible, the media is preoccupied with a more practical question: Will they be held in Pakistan, and will Islamabad be an effective mediator?