Iran said on Wednesday that indirect exchanges with the United States via Pakistan have continued following weekend negotiations in Islamabad that failed to produce an agreement, signaling both sides remain engaged despite the absence of a breakthrough in nuclear-related discussions.
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei told reporters that several messages have been exchanged through Pakistani intermediaries since the Iranian delegation returned to Tehran on Sunday. He indicated that a Pakistani delegation was expected to arrive imminently to continue discussions, underscoring Islamabad’s sustained role as a crucial mediator between the two powers. This mediation reflects Pakistan’s longstanding position as a diplomatic bridge in regional conflicts and its strategic importance to both Washington and Tehran.
The statement from Iran’s foreign ministry comes as US President Donald Trump told The New York Post that talks between Washington and Tehran could resume within two days, explicitly noting preference for Pakistan as a venue. Trump’s comments suggest the US administration views Pakistan’s diplomatic infrastructure and the “Field Marshal”—an apparent reference to Pakistan’s military establishment—as instrumental to restarting direct negotiations. The diplomatic architecture emerging around Pakistan underscores how third-party mediation has become essential in US-Iran relations, particularly given decades of direct hostility and the absence of formal diplomatic ties.
On the substantive nuclear issue, Baqaei reiterated Iran’s non-negotiable position: Tehran’s right to uranium enrichment is indisputable, though the level of enrichment remains open to discussion. “Regarding the level and type of enrichment, we have always stated that this issue is negotiable,” he said, adding that Iran must be able to continue enrichment according to its needs. This framing represents Tehran’s attempt to establish a distinction between principle and practice—asserting sovereignty over nuclear capability while appearing flexible on technical parameters.
The failed Islamabad talks, which concluded without a joint statement or agreement, highlight the depth of disagreement on multiple fronts. Iran’s insistence on enrichment rights, combined with US demands for caps on uranium stockpiles and enrichment levels, remain fundamentally at odds. Yet the fact that both sides have authorized Pakistan to continue shuttle diplomacy suggests neither party has closed the door entirely. The continued messaging through Islamabad, rather than direct channels, allows both capitals to maintain domestic political positions while keeping negotiations alive.
Pakistan’s role as intermediary carries strategic implications for regional stability. A successful Iran-US agreement could ease tensions in the Gulf, reduce proxy conflicts in Iraq and Syria, and potentially ease pressure on Pakistan’s own borders with both Iran and Afghanistan. Conversely, a complete breakdown would likely intensify regional militarization and could complicate Pakistan’s delicate balancing act between Gulf allies and Iran. Pakistan’s willingness to host repeated rounds of talks demonstrates its interest in preventing escalation that could destabilize the wider region and affect Pakistani security interests.
The diplomatic trajectory ahead remains uncertain. Trump’s explicit preference for Pakistan as a venue and his suggestion that talks could resume imminently indicates political will from the US side, yet this must be tested against Tehran’s nuclear demands and the historical pattern of failed negotiations. Observers should watch for substantive concessions from either side—whether Iran will offer enforceable caps on enrichment levels or whether the US will soften demands on stockpile reductions. The role of Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership in shuttling proposals will be critical; successful mediation requires both technical expertise and credibility with hardliners in both capitals. If negotiations collapse again, the indirect messaging channel through Islamabad may become a containment mechanism rather than a pathway to agreement.
