Delegates from the United States and Iran are preparing to convene in Islamabad this weekend, marking a high-stakes attempt to transform a fragile ceasefire into a durable peace. The negotiations, scheduled to begin Saturday morning, represent a pivotal moment for an administration that has shifted away from the multilateral diplomacy of the past in favor of a more unilateral, power-based approach to Middle East security.
The US and Iran peace talks in Pakistan arrive after a period of intense conflict, as President Donald Trump opted for overwhelming force to address Tehran’s nuclear ambitions—a sharp departure from the exhaustive negotiations and shared enforcement mechanisms that defined the Obama-era nuclear deal. Now, Washington faces the challenge of whether it can secure a lasting settlement essentially alone, without the broad coalition of allies that once anchored American foreign policy.
The current diplomatic push is led by Vice President JD Vance and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. Their agenda is dense and fraught with tension, covering Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal, the use of proxy militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the critical security of the Strait of Hormuz.
The Islamabad Pivot: An Unlikely Mediator
The choice of Pakistan as the host city is a calculated diplomatic move. Currently, Islamabad is perhaps the only nation capable of maintaining the trust of both Washington and Tehran, though this position was not always guaranteed.
The relationship between Pakistan and Iran has been volatile; as recently as 2024, the two nations faced a severe standoff after Iran launched missiles into Pakistani territory. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s internal politics were strained by a cold relationship with the previous U.S. Administration under Joe Biden, who notably distanced himself from former Prime Minister Imran Khan. But, a concerted “charm offensive” from Islamabad, which included nominating President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, has successfully reset the relationship with the White House.
Syed Naveed Qamar, a Pakistani politician, noted that this represents a unique historical moment for the country. “Perhaps for the first time, Pakistan has diplomatically placed itself in such a way that such strong adversaries trust it as the common denominator,” Qamar said. “This has never happened before.”
For the Trump administration, Pakistan has become a strategic necessity. Yaqoob Khan Bangash, a foreign policy expert at the Institute of Business Administration in Karachi, suggested that Trump had few other viable options to facilitate these specific talks.
Speed vs. Stability: The ‘Gaza Model’
Observers suggest that Vance and Witkoff may attempt to model these negotiations after the Gaza peace plan, which prioritized the immediate cessation of hostilities over long-term structural resolutions. Although this approach allows for rapid results, critics argue it often leaves the root causes of conflict unaddressed.
Laurel Rapp, a U.S. Expert at Chatham House, pointed to a pattern of “flimsy” arrangements within the current administration, citing a previous pledge to execute 90 trade deals in 90 days. According to Rapp, such deals are often only half-negotiated, making them tough to implement and operative in the long run.
The advantage of this unilateral path is speed. By bypassing the complications of a multilateral coalition, Washington can act decisively during the current two-week ceasefire. However, the lack of buy-in from traditional allies may undermine the deal’s longevity. While European nations may assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, they have established strict guidelines to avoid appearing as contributors to an American-led war effort.
Ole Jacob Sending, a geopolitical expert at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, warned that while the U.S. Can use its dominance to coerce allies, such pressure lacks the credibility of genuine partnership. Sending noted that Iran enters these talks with significant leverage, which could be countered more effectively if other global actors were enthusiastically involved.
The Erosion of the Postwar Order
The tension in Islamabad reflects a broader shift in the global security architecture. The original Iran nuclear deal under President Barack Obama took years to finalize but included Russia and China, ensuring that Tehran had no easy workarounds to cheat the system.
By contrast, the current administration has actively sidelined the international institutions the U.S. Helped build after World War II. Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, argues that this trend toward unilateralism makes the global system less stable.
| Feature | Obama-Era Model | Trump-Era Model |
|---|---|---|
| Method | Multilateral Negotiations | Unilateral Power/Force |
| Key Partners | EU, Russia, China | Direct Bilateral (via Pakistan) |
| Primary Goal | Long-term Nuclear Containment | Immediate Cessation of Hostilities |
| Enforcement | International Institutions | U.S. Leverage and Pressure |
Lesser suggests that threats to abandon Ukraine or exit NATO have already pushed Europe toward its largest postwar defense expenditures. Similarly, the conflict with Iran is prompting Gulf states to arm themselves more aggressively. The result, Lesser warns, is a dangerous incentive for nations to seek nuclear weapons to ensure their own safety in a world where the U.S. Is no longer a predictable guarantor of security.
As the delegates meet in Pakistan, the political stakes for the White House are high. If the administration fails to produce a deal more comprehensive than the one it dismantled, it will face a difficult narrative. As Laurel Rapp noted, President Trump will have a “higher political hill to climb” to prove his method was superior to the multilateralism of his predecessor.
The international community now awaits the results of the Saturday session, with the next critical checkpoint being the expiration of the current two-week ceasefire. Whether these talks result in a permanent peace or a temporary pause remains to be seen.
Do you believe unilateral diplomacy is more effective in the modern era, or is multilateral trust essential for lasting peace? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
