By Dr Shazia Anwer Cheema
U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest statements suggest that the recent negotiations between the United States and Iran in Islamabad have not failed but instead have laid important groundwork for future diplomatic progress, with Pakistan playing a pivotal facilitative role.
In two separate messages, President Trump expressed profuse gratitude to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir for their leadership in making the high-stakes meeting possible. His remarks underscore Pakistan’s effectiveness as a neutral venue and mediator, enabling direct engagement between long-standing adversaries.
According to Trump, “almost all” major points were agreed upon during what he described as “hectic and meaningful parleys.” The only significant area where a final agreement could not be reached was the sensitive nuclear issue, which remains the core sticking point between Washington and Tehran.
Despite this, the U.S. president highlighted that “a lot of ground was covered in a very short time,” calling it a notable diplomatic achievement. He also pointed to a marked improvement in personal rapport and chemistry between the two delegations, indicating a shift in tone that could prove crucial for future negotiations.
Importantly, Trump’s messaging carries a latent indication that diplomacy remains very much alive. The ceasefire continues to hold and has not been called off, signaling that both sides are leaving space for further engagement.
In essence, Trump’s remarks endorse Pakistan’s role, acknowledge substantial progress, isolate the key unresolved issue, and keep the door open for a negotiated settlement—suggesting that Islamabad’s initiative has successfully prevented a diplomatic deadlock and may yet lead to a broader agreement.
I also do not consider them a failure because this represents perhaps the last comparatively less humiliating off-ramp available to the United States, and it is well aware of this. Internationally, and even more so domestically, the current U.S. government appears to be operating on increasingly fragile and sluggish grounds. In my view, this fragile ceasefire is likely to persist at least until a potential visit by Donald Trump to China. Its continuation is also significantly conditioned by the role of Israel—more precisely, by the possibility of its strategic cynicism in deliberately undermining the process. Thus, the current truce appears to be holding despite an evident deadlock.
During the discussions, there were rumours that both parties had reached agreement on at least four points. However, the primary obstacle emerged around the Strait of Hormuz—particularly its operational mechanisms, the Oman–Iran dynamic, and Iran’s territorial claims over the strait. These issues proved especially difficult to reconcile. Meanwhile, the United States continued to emphasize its longstanding demand for the rollback of what it describes as a military-grade nuclear programme, despite ongoing disputes about its very existence.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance, in response to a journalist, described the proposal as “a very simple proposal, a method of understanding a final best effort.” In contrast, an Iranian parliamentary speaker suggested on X (formerly Twitter), in paraphrased terms, that the United States had failed to gain Iranian trust. Iranian media, however, maintains that the U.S. must refrain from excessive demands and instead recognize Iran’s legitimate rights and interests.
Given the fluid and uncertain situation, Pakistan is also assessing potential contingencies. If this fragile ceasefire collapses and Iran were to retaliate, for instance by targeting Middle Eastern countries, Pakistan could find itself in a highly complex strategic position.
At the same time, I remain confident that Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia will ultimately find a way forward for regional peace through mutual understanding. Pakistan has resumed trade with Iran, and Karachi port is experiencing renewed activity. Historically, Karachi was a major commercial hub long before the rise of Gulf ports, which, arguably, developed in ways that diverted regional economic flows. Under the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC) and its one-window operational framework, Pakistan is attempting to streamline trade and bypass bureaucratic inefficiencies.
U.S.–Iran relations are likely to remain on their current trajectory unless the United States reassesses certain strategic realities and moves beyond its posture of hyper-masculine foreign policy. Meanwhile, Iran is expected to continue drawing support from regional actors and maintain its territorial and political integrity. A potential pathway forward lies in greater regional cooperation—particularly among Gulf countries, China, Turkey, Russia, Pakistan, and Central Asian states—to develop a more integrated and autonomous framework for security and economic coordination. Such a development could eventually send a message to the United States either to recalibrate its role in the region or to integrate into a new geopolitical arrangement.
Dr Shazia Anwer Cheema is an author, and analyst and writes articles for national and international media outlets. She did her M.Phil in Cognitive Semiotics from Aarhus University Denmark and Ph.D. in Semiotics and Philosophy of Communication from Charles University Prague.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/Opinion/Comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk News.
