The two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran is, in the most literal sense, a pause. Not a peace. The fighting has stopped — imperfectly, with disputes about Lebanon already threatening the edges of the truce. But the core issues that produced this war, and that will determine whether it ends durably or merely pauses, have not been resolved. They now move to Islamabad.
On Friday, April 10, delegations from the United States and Iran are scheduled to meet in Pakistan’s capital for what could be the most consequential set of diplomatic talks in the region in a generation.
Who Will Be in the Room
US Vice President JD Vance, White House special envoy Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner are expected to represent the United States at the Islamabad talks. Pakistan’s prime minister and military chief will serve as hosts and mediators.
Iran’s delegation is expected to be led by officials from the Foreign Ministry and the Supreme National Security Council — the bodies that have been directing Iran’s negotiating strategy throughout the war.
Iran’s National Security Council confirmed it would enter talks in Islamabad based on its 10-point proposal, and said Tehran would participate “with complete distrust” of the United States, while warning it was ready to respond with “full force” to any misstep during the ceasefire period.
The Full Agenda
The issues that must be resolved fall into several distinct categories, each carrying enormous complexity and political weight.
Iran’s nuclear program. This is the hardest issue on the table — and the one that has resisted resolution for decades. Trump has said there will be “no enrichment” of uranium in Iran, and that the US will work with Iran to “dig up and remove all of the deeply buried nuclear dust” — a reference to the results of strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities during the June 2025 conflict. The full details of the US’s 15-point plan have not been published but are believed to include Iran committing to no nuclear weapons, handing over its highly enriched uranium, and accepting limits on its defense capabilities.
Iran’s foreign minister confirmed that while Washington had accepted “the general framework” of Iran’s 10-point proposal as a basis for negotiations, Iran was simultaneously considering the US’s 15-point proposal. The key sticking point on the nuclear question remains whether Iran would accept permanent limits on enrichment — something it has historically refused to do.
The Strait of Hormuz. The terms governing the strait’s future operation are deeply contested. Iran’s National Security Council said its 10-point plan called for Iranian dominance and oversight of the Strait of Hormuz, which it said would grant Iran “a unique economic and geopolitical position.”
Trump suggested the US may be involved in securing the Strait of Hormuz in a “joint venture” with Iran, a formulation whose implications for Iran’s sovereign control over the waterway remain unclear. It is uncertain whether Iran would be open to such an arrangement.
Sanctions and war reparations. Iran’s 10-point plan calls for the lifting of all sanctions by the US, the United Nations Security Council, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as full compensation for war damages. The plan also demands the release of frozen Iranian assets and the ratification of any final agreement through a binding UN Security Council resolution — a demand that would effectively give Iran international legal protection for any deal reached.
US military presence in the region. Iran’s proposal calls for the withdrawal of all “US combat forces” from bases in the Middle East — a demand the US has consistently refused to engage with seriously, given its longstanding network of bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and elsewhere.
Iran’s regional proxy network. The US wants Iran to end support for Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and other armed groups across the region. Iran views these relationships as strategic assets it has spent decades building and will not relinquish without significant guarantees.
The Trust Problem
Analysts widely agree that the core challenge in Islamabad will not be the technical details of any agreement but the fundamental absence of trust between the two sides. From Washington’s perspective, longstanding concerns over Iran’s nuclear program make any deal contingent on verification that Iran will not resume enrichment.
From Tehran’s side, deep skepticism about US intentions — especially given past withdrawals from agreements and the fact that this war began while diplomacy was underway — makes any American guarantee suspect.
Iran has pointed to the 2015 nuclear deal, the JCPOA, as a cautionary example. That agreement, reached after years of painstaking negotiation, was unilaterally abandoned by the United States under Trump’s first term. Iran’s negotiators have made clear they will not accept a framework that allows the same outcome again.
What Success Looks Like
A successful outcome in Islamabad would not be a comprehensive peace settlement — that is not achievable in two weeks. What success would look like is a framework agreement that extends the ceasefire beyond two weeks, establishes agreed principles on the nuclear question, clarifies the status of Lebanon, provides a roadmap for sanctions relief tied to verifiable Iranian steps, and gives both sides enough to claim domestic political victory.
Mehran Kamrava of Georgetown University Qatar said both Washington and Tehran had demonstrated “tremendous willpower” to bring the war to an end — a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in Islamabad.
What Failure Looks Like
If the Islamabad talks break down, the ceasefire is unlikely to survive. Iran has warned it will respond to any misstep with “full force.” Trump has said previously he would resume strikes if Iran did not meet his conditions. And the operational plan for a massive US-Israeli bombing campaign on Iran’s energy infrastructure, prepared before Tuesday’s ceasefire, has not been dismantled.
The Council on Foreign Relations noted that whether the temporary ceasefire will lead to a lasting peace settlement remains deeply uncertain. “These are difficult issues that will not be easily resolved in a matter of weeks,” according to Chatham House’s Vakil.
The world just stepped back from an extraordinary precipice. What happens in Islamabad on Friday will determine how far back it has actually moved.
