How the US-Iran talks in Islamabad unfolded | US-Israel battle on Iran News | UNW

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.

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.