The first hour in Islamabad carried the weight of a war that has already stretched six weeks and a ceasefire that still feels unsteady. In that room, iran us talks began after separate meetings with Pakistan’s prime minister, and the tone was careful, charged, and deeply uncertain.
What happened when the delegations met in Islamabad?
The United States and Iran are holding in-person talks in Pakistan aimed at ending the war, days after a fragile ceasefire was agreed. Discussions began on Saturday afternoon in Islamabad after each delegation first met separately with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
The US delegation is led by Vice President JD Vance and includes special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Iran’s delegation, which numbers more than 70 people, is led by parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Initial plans called for proximate talks, but reporting from Islamabad indicated that the two sides were instead engaged in direct negotiations, with Pakistani mediators also present. That shift matters because it suggests the talks have moved beyond simple message passing and into a more immediate test of what each side is willing to put on the table.
Why do the talks matter beyond the room in Pakistan?
The talks are not only about the ceasefire. They also reflect a wider struggle over whether a temporary halt in fighting can become something more durable. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s office said Islamabad hoped the talks would become “a stepping stone toward durable peace in the region. ”
The human stakes are visible in the background: the conflict has gone on for six weeks, and the ceasefire remains fragile. One unresolved issue is Lebanon, where Israeli attacks on Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters have killed nearly 2, 000 people since fighting began in March. Tehran and Pakistan say Lebanon should be included in the ceasefire, while Israel and the US say the Lebanon campaign is separate from the Iran-US ceasefire.
That disagreement shows how one conflict can spill into another, leaving negotiators to argue not only over security, but over where the boundaries of peace should even be drawn. In this setting, iran us talks are as much about interpretation as they are about policy.
What are the main sticking points now?
Iran entered the talks after previously saying they would not take place without commitments on Lebanon’s inclusion and US sanctions. Ghalibaf said Washington had already agreed to unblock Iranian assets and to a ceasefire in Lebanon, while also saying Iran was ready to reach a deal if the United States offered what he described as a genuine agreement and granted Iran its rights.
He also said Iran’s experience in negotiations with the Americans had “always been met with failure and broken promises. ” On the US side, the White House did not immediately respond to the Iranian demands. President Donald Trump wrote on social media that the Iranians had no cards other than what he called short-term extortion through international waterways. Speaking as he headed to Pakistan, Vance said he expected a positive outcome, but warned that if Iran tried to play the US, the negotiating team would not be receptive.
That language matters because it frames the talks as both a diplomatic opening and a contest of leverage. The issue of unfreezing Iranian assets is also part of the discussion, with sources in Islamabad saying there could be movement on that front, though they cautioned that much remained unconfirmed.
What could shape the next stage of Iran Us negotiations?
For now, the most concrete detail is that the two delegations are in the same city, at the same table, with Pakistani mediators in the room. That alone signals a narrow but real opening after weeks of war and days of ceasefire.
Still, the atmosphere remains guarded. The talks are taking place amid competing claims about Lebanon, sanctions, and assets, and the public language from both sides suggests neither wants to appear weak. The early signs from Islamabad point to some progress on basic conditions, including the need for a ceasefire in Lebanon, but officials and mediators are treating that progress as tentative.
For residents watching from outside the negotiating rooms, the meaning of these iran us talks may not be clear yet. What is clear is that the outcome will be measured not by the statements made in Islamabad, but by whether the ceasefire holds long enough for trust to begin, however slowly, to take root.
