The main hope for the ceasefire talks in Pakistan lies in the fact that both the United States and Iran have compelling reasons to end the war. However, progress is hindered by deep mistrust, a lack of common ground, and Israel’s intensified military campaign in Lebanon as Washington’s key ally in the conflict.
US President Donald Trump has already begun referring to the war as if it has ended, signalling a desire to exit after declaring victory. His schedule includes a state visit from King Charles later this month, a summit with China’s President Xi Jinping in May, and midterm elections in November.
With the summer holiday season approaching, he also faces pressure to bring petrol prices down to pre-war levels, making a prolonged conflict politically inconvenient, reports BBC.
Iran also has strong incentives to bring the war to a halt. Despite remaining defiant and continuing missile and drone operations, the country has suffered extensive damage, with economic activity in cities slowing sharply. The leadership is seeking time to regroup and appears intent on using the Pakistan talks to reinforce its position.
Mediators from Pakistan face a difficult task, as the official positions of the two sides remain far apart. Reports suggest Trump has outlined a 15-point plan that critics view as closer to a surrender framework than a negotiation basis, while Iran’s 10-point proposal includes demands Washington has repeatedly rejected.
A lasting ceasefire will require at least an agreement to continue dialogue despite deep disagreements. Even under normal conditions, bridging such differences would be difficult. In the current wartime context, with no mutual trust, even a minimal understanding to sustain the ceasefire without resolving broader disputes would be seen as progress, while failure to reach any agreement risks renewed conflict.
The most pressing issue is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime route at the Gulf’s entrance. Its closure has given Iran significant leverage over the global economy.
Restoring access to the strait, which previously handled hundreds of ships daily before the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran, has become central to the negotiations. Millions of civilians across the Middle East, already affected by the conflict, are now looking to these talks as a possible turning point towards ending the war.
No quick victory as US re-enters talks
The United States did not expect to enter ceasefire negotiations in early April after launching large-scale strikes alongside Israel on February 28, attacks that killed Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and members of his family.
US President Donald Trump had anticipated a swift outcome, similar to previous high-profile military operations, expecting the Iranian leadership collapse to follow quickly.
Those expectations proved misplaced, as the Iranian regime remained intact despite the initial wave of airstrikes.
Khamenei’s son Mojtaba, named as successor, has not appeared publicly, with reports suggesting he may have been injured in the attacks that killed multiple members of the ruling family.
Despite leadership losses, Iran has continued to demonstrate resilience, maintaining operational capacity and political control.
Trump’s team, led by Vice-President JD Vance, is now engaged in negotiations with Iranian officials, even as US leaders continue to frame the conflict as a military success.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth described the outcome as a “major military victory”, though the persistence of Iran’s regime and ongoing talks point to a more complex reality.
Hormuz emerges as central faultline
The war triggered by the United States and Israel is already reshaping Middle Eastern geopolitics, with deeper shifts expected as its long-term consequences unfold.
While US and Israeli strikes have caused extensive damage to Iran’s military and civilian infrastructure, the regime remains intact and operational, with the ability to continue launching missiles and drones.
This has exposed a gap between battlefield gains and strategic outcomes, as regime change has not materialised despite early expectations.
Iran, meanwhile, has demonstrated that control over the Strait of Hormuz provides a powerful strategic advantage, one that appears to have been underestimated in the decision to go to war.
The closure of the strait following the attacks was consistent with past threats, including disruptions to oil shipments during the Iran–Iraq war in the 1980s.
For decades, governments dependent on the route had assessed such a scenario, yet the risks did not deter the military campaign.
Before the conflict, around 20 per cent of global oil and gas shipments passed through the Strait of Hormuz daily, alongside key petrochemical inputs used in fertilisers and high-tech manufacturing.
Blocking the route has amplified global economic pressure, giving Iran leverage that extends beyond the battlefield.
Tehran now appears intent on turning that leverage into a lasting strategic gain, linking it to broader demands including the closure of US bases in the region, compensation for war damage, the resumption of uranium enrichment, and the lifting of sanctions.
Negotiating over the strait is proving as complex as discussions on Iran’s nuclear programme, which was designed to expand deterrence options.
In contrast, restricting maritime access has emerged as a lower-cost but highly disruptive tool with immediate global impact.
During the current two-week ceasefire, Iran has required vessels to seek permission from its armed forces to pass through the strait, warning that unauthorised ships could be targeted.
Some vessels have reportedly been charged millions of dollars in transit fees, raising concerns among Gulf states over potential long-term economic implications.
The risks are compounded by the role of Iran’s regional allies, with Yemen’s Houthi forces demonstrating during the Gaza war their ability to disrupt shipping at Bab al-Mandab, another critical chokepoint linking the Red Sea.
Saudi Arabia has already diverted some oil exports through pipelines to Red Sea ports to bypass the Gulf route, a workaround that would be threatened if southern access is blocked.
The leadership transition in Iran following the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has added further uncertainty, as younger figures from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps take control.
While they share his distrust of the West, their approach may be less cautious, adding another layer of unpredictability to an already volatile situation.
