The most immediate test is whether both sides are even discussing the same agreement. Tehran has signalled that it wants any settlement to recognise what it calls its right to peaceful nuclear activity, while the White House has kept up its demand that Iran must not retain a path to weapons-grade capability. American officials said this week that Iran had indicated a willingness to hand over enriched uranium, yet public messaging from both capitals has remained contradictory, reinforcing doubts over whether the diplomatic track rests on a settled framework or on overlapping interpretations designed to buy time.
That ambiguity matters because Iran’s nuclear stockpile is not a marginal issue but the core of the talks. Before the latest wave of attacks, the International Atomic Energy Agency had assessed that Iran held 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent, material that could be taken further if a political decision were made. Tehran continues to deny seeking a bomb, but the scale of its stockpile, the survival of key facilities and the absence of agreement on inspections or removal mechanisms mean the Islamabad meeting will be judged first on whether it produces verifiable movement on enrichment, storage and monitoring.
Yet the nuclear file is only one part of the problem. Pakistan’s proposal, as described by people familiar with the diplomacy, reaches into sanctions, frozen assets, shipping security and wider regional guarantees. That broader design reflects a lesson from earlier rounds of US-Iran diplomacy: agreements built around a single technical issue tend to unravel when proxies, missiles and trade restrictions are left unresolved. This time, European governments are openly pressing for a more comprehensive approach, arguing that Iran must address missile and drone threats, support for armed groups and the free movement of energy supplies if the ceasefire is to evolve into something more durable.
The Strait of Hormuz gives the talks an economic urgency that neither side can ignore. Although the ceasefire eased some market panic, shipping constraints and uncertainty over passage have kept oil traders on edge, while allies in Europe and the Gulf have warned that a fragile truce is not enough to restore confidence. Confusion over whether the waterway is fully open, partly restricted or subject to Iranian conditions has deepened the sense that military de-escalation without a shipping settlement will leave the global economy exposed to another shock.
Another destabilising issue is Lebanon. Tehran and several outside powers argue that the ceasefire should cover Israeli military action against Hezbollah, while Washington and Israel have treated that front as separate. The disagreement is no longer theoretical. Heavy Israeli strikes on Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon have drawn condemnation from European leaders and raised fears that any progress in Islamabad could be undone by events outside the negotiating room. That has turned the question of scope into a central diplomatic fault line: a deal that ignores Lebanon may prove too narrow to hold, while one that tries to absorb every regional conflict may become too unwieldy to implement.
Pakistan’s role has also become more prominent than many expected. Islamabad has moved from back-channel facilitator to visible convenor, promoting what has been described as a two-phase framework beginning with a memorandum for a ceasefire and moving toward a broader political settlement. That elevates Pakistan diplomatically, but it also means the host country is now tied to an outcome that may depend less on its mediation skills than on whether Washington and Tehran are prepared to make politically costly concessions at home and across the region.
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
