Ceasefire strain deepens after Trump cancels Pakistan talks

President Donald Trump has cancelled a planned visit to Pakistan by two of his senior envoys for negotiations over the Iran conflict, leaving a fragile ceasefire under deeper strain and casting doubt on the next phase of diplomacy aimed at halting a war that has unsettled energy markets and widened security risks across West Asia.

Trump told Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, and special envoy Steve Witkoff to skip the trip to Islamabad on Saturday, a day after the White House had indicated that the two men would travel to Pakistan’s capital to help revive ceasefire negotiations. The decision came as Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, left Islamabad without meeting US officials, despite Pakistan’s attempt to broker indirect talks between Washington and Tehran.

The president said there had been “too much time wasted on travelling” and argued that divisions inside Iran’s leadership made the proposed trip ineffective. He also said Tehran could contact Washington directly if it wanted talks, adding that the US held the stronger negotiating position. His remarks signalled a sharper posture from the White House after days of cautious optimism that Pakistan’s mediation could reopen a channel between the two sides.

The cancellation has raised concerns over the durability of the current ceasefire, which followed weeks of fighting between the US, Israel and Iran. The conflict began in late February after US-Israeli strikes on Iran, prompting Iranian retaliation across the region and the closure or severe restriction of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. The ceasefire announced earlier this month was intended to reduce direct hostilities and create space for negotiations, but the agreement has remained vulnerable to disputes over sanctions, port access, nuclear restrictions and maritime control.

Iran has insisted that it will not negotiate under blockade conditions. President Masoud Pezeshkian has demanded that Washington lift restrictions on Iranian ports before formal talks resume. Tehran has also argued that its visit to Pakistan was part of bilateral diplomacy and not a confirmed meeting with US officials, reflecting the gap between how the two sides have described the diplomatic track.

Pakistan’s role has become increasingly important because both Washington and Tehran need a channel that allows contact without appearing to make unilateral concessions. Islamabad has positioned itself as a mediator capable of speaking to both sides while maintaining ties across the region. Pakistani officials had hoped the presence of Araghchi, followed by the arrival of Kushner and Witkoff, could create momentum for a broader framework covering the ceasefire, maritime access and Iran’s nuclear programme.

Those hopes have now been weakened. Araghchi described his Pakistan visit as productive, but no breakthrough was announced. He is expected to continue consultations with other regional and international actors, including Oman, which has previously hosted indirect US-Iran diplomacy. Russia has also been mentioned in discussions over possible guarantees for any future settlement, though no firm arrangement has emerged.

The Strait of Hormuz remains central to the crisis. The narrow waterway carries a significant share of the world’s seaborne oil and gas trade, and disruption there has already affected shipping, insurance costs and energy prices. Only a small number of vessels have been able to move through the route during periods of heightened tension, while ship seizures, naval deployments and mine-clearing concerns have added to commercial uncertainty.

US naval forces have been involved in efforts to assess and clear possible underwater mines, a process that could take months even if a political agreement is reached. Maritime analysts have warned that shipowners may remain cautious until both Washington and Tehran provide credible assurances on safe passage. Energy companies and importing economies in Asia and Europe are watching the strait closely because prolonged disruption could tighten fuel supplies and increase transport costs.

The diplomatic impasse also intersects with the wider security picture in Lebanon, Iraq, the Gulf and the Red Sea, where Iran-aligned groups and US partners have been drawn into the crisis in different ways. Israel has continued to view Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities as a direct threat, while Tehran maintains that its military actions are defensive responses to strikes on its territory and pressure on its economy.