In a climate of tension and mutual mistrust, the diplomatic effort for de-escalation in . The second round of negotiations between and collapsed before they had even begun.
The decision of the American president, in Islamabad, is not just an organizational retreat, but reflects the deep trust gap and the shift to a rhetoric of complete questioning of Iranian political legitimacy.
“No one knows who rules”
Donald Trump, using the Truth Social platform, presented a picture of the disintegration of the Iranian leadership, which was also the official justification for the withdrawal of his delegation. According to the US president, Tehran is plagued by “huge infighting” and “great confusion”, to the extent that, he claims, even Iranian officials themselves do not know who owns the final decision-making.
This position of the White House seems to be part of a wider strategy of psychological pressure. Characteristically stating that “we hold all the cards and they hold none”, Mr Trump attempted to undermine Tehran’s negotiating power, shifting responsibility for any future contact solely to the other side. His admonition to “call if they want to talk” suggests a wait-and-see attitude, where Washington does not intend to expend further diplomatic capital on trips and consultations it deems fruitless.
It questions the seriousness of the US
On the contrary, Tehran appears to be moving with its own diplomatic agenda, strengthening its ties with regional actors. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has completed a round of contacts in Pakistan, which he described as “very productive”. In a message after leaving Islamabad, Mr. Araghchi took sharp jabs at Washington, publicly questioning whether the United States was “really serious” about diplomacy.
The head of Iranian diplomacy claimed that his country has laid down a “sustainable framework” for a permanent end to conflicts in the region, placing Iran in the position of a constructive interlocutor. His move soon after to Oman—a traditional mediator between the West and Tehran—suggests that despite the aborted meeting with the Americans in Pakistan, the Iranian side’s channels remain active, if only indirectly.
Pakistan as an ‘honest mediator’
A central role in the unfolding crisis is played by Pakistan, which seeks to strike a balance between the two sides. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, after speaking with Iranian President Massoud Pezheskian, reaffirmed his country’s commitment to serve as an “honest and sincere mediator.”
For Islamabad, the success of such mediation is not only a matter of prestige, but also a vital necessity to maintain stability on its borders. However, the sudden cancellation of the US visit puts the Pakistani government in a difficult position, highlighting the difficulty of reconciling two diametrically opposed approaches.
The strategic threat of the Straits of Hormuz
While diplomacy appears to be at a standstill, Iran’s military arm is a reminder of its strength in the field. The Revolutionary Guards’ announcement, which identifies control of the Straits of Hormuz as the country’s “defining strategy,” is a clear warning to global energy markets. By controlling this strategic corridor, Tehran maintains a strong deterrent advantage against the US and its allies, making it clear that any economic or diplomatic stranglehold can be met with moves to affect global oil supplies.
In conclusion, the current phase of the US-Iran confrontation is characterized by a transition from expectations of dialogue to open questioning of the adversary’s credibility. With Donald Trump demanding an unconditional communication and Tehran entrenching itself behind its strategic geo-location, peace in the region remains a goal that seems to be slipping away, despite the efforts of mediators such as Pakistan.
