Are negotiations between Iran and the United States really concluded – or are they still going on behind closed doors? Confusion deepened on Sunday after sharply contrasting accounts from Tehran and Washington DC on the status of high-stakes ceasefire talks held in Pakistan.
Iran and the United States ended their first direct talks in more than a decade without a breakthrough in Islamabad on Saturday, with conflicting statements from both sides deepening uncertainty over whether the talks were concluded at all.
Conflicting claims by Tehran and Washington DC
The Iranian government has indicated that the talks have reached a break point after intense negotiations.
“Pakistan-brokered Iran-US talks ended after 14 hours. Technical teams from both sides are now exchanging technical texts. Negotiations will continue despite some remaining differences,” the government said in a post on X, without specifying when discussions would resume.
Yet almost simultaneously, accounts attributed to the office of US Vice President JD Vance suggested that the negotiations were far from over.
A pool report, cited by several outlets, indicated that the talks had crossed the 3-hour mark, with discussions continuing into the wee hours of the morning.
“Fifteen hours and counting,” the US official was quoted as saying, stressing the protracted and unresolved nature of the engagement.
The first direct negotiations in ten years carry high stakes
The dialogue in Islamabad represents a rare diplomatic opening between Iran and the US – their first direct talks in more than a decade and the biggest top-level contact since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The result has global implications. At stake is not only the duration of the current ceasefire, but also the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz – a maritime strait through which approximately 20% of the world’s energy reserves pass.
Iran has blockaded the Strait of Hormuz since the outbreak of hostilities, driving up oil prices and exacerbating a conflict that has already claimed thousands of lives.
Standoff over Hormuz and nuclear demands
Despite the lengthy negotiations, significant differences appear to remain.
According to reports cited by the Financial Times, the talks have reached an impasse over control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian sources indicate that US demands have complicated efforts to create a common framework for negotiations.
A security source said the status of the strait would remain unchanged until the two sides agreed on a common basis for further talks and accused Washington DC of “excessive demands”.
These demands, as outlined by pro-government commentator Ali Gholhaki, include sweeping concessions:
“The US is demanding 400 kg of uranium from Iran – “the same stockpile that failed to be seized in a previous military operation” – along with 0% enrichment and full control of the Strait of Hormuz.”
He added: “Today’s test in the strait was met with firm Iranian rejection. No US commitments to Lebanon, indicating that Washington has not come to real negotiations,” in a post on X.
Another round is expected as “serious disagreements” remain.
Iranian state media said the first round of talks ended on Saturday, with another round likely to follow within hours. Under the tripartite format – involving Pakistan as an intermediary – the two sides exchange draft proposals through technical teams.
However, progress remains uncertain. Iran’s Tasnim news agency, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said some “serious disagreements” continued to divide the delegations.
At Pakistan’s suggestion, both sides agreed in principle to continue talks, although no formal timetable has been confirmed.
The focal point of the flare-up remains the Strait of Hormuz
For now, the status of the Strait of Hormuz remains unchanged – a critical pressure point in negotiations with global implications.
Until a “common framework” is agreed, Iranian officials have indicated the blockade will remain in place, prolonging uncertainty in energy markets and raising the stakes of an already fragile diplomatic process.
