Amid the rhetoric, a parallel track of quiet diplomacy continues. Pakistan has hosted multiple rounds of indirect talks between US and Iranian delegations, working to keep open a channel of communication between two countries that have no formal diplomatic relations.
The talks are a reminder that, even in the most tense moments, diplomacy rarely stops entirely. Behind the public posturing, there is usually a quieter conversation taking place, aimed at preventing the worst outcomes even when a breakthrough seems distant.
Why Indirect Talks
The format — proximity talks rather than direct meetings — has allowed both sides to test positions without the political cost of a public handshake. Each side can explore the other’s red lines through an intermediary, signalling flexibility without appearing weak to domestic audiences.
The United States and Iran severed formal diplomatic relations more than four decades ago, following the 1979 revolution and the hostage crisis that followed. Since then, they have communicated through intermediaries, a pattern that makes every negotiation slower and more complicated.
Indirect talks are inherently cumbersome. Messages pass through a third party, nuance can be lost, and the process is vulnerable to misunderstanding. Yet for two governments that cannot be seen talking directly, they are often the only workable format.
Pakistan’s Role
Pakistan is well placed for the role of intermediary. It shares a long border with Iran, maintains working ties with Washington, and has a clear interest in preventing instability on its doorstep. A conflict between the United States and Iran would have direct consequences for Pakistan’s own security and economy.
Mediation is not a new role for Islamabad. The country has, at various points, sought to position itself as a bridge between different powers in the region, drawing on its geography and its relationships to facilitate dialogue that might otherwise not happen.
The role carries risks as well as rewards. A mediator must maintain the trust of both sides, and that trust can be fragile. Pakistan’s own relationships with Washington and Tehran are complex, and managing them while hosting talks is a delicate balancing act.
What the Talks Aim to Achieve
Diplomats describe the conversations as cautious but substantive. The goal is not a grand settlement but a series of confidence-building steps that could lower the temperature and create space for broader negotiation.
In practice, this means identifying small, achievable measures — the release of detainees, a pause in certain activities, an agreement on communication channels — that build trust incrementally. Such steps rarely make headlines, but they can shift the atmosphere in ways that make larger agreements possible.
The underlying issues remain formidable. The nuclear programme, sanctions, and regional rivalries are not going to be resolved quickly. But the talks are not aimed at resolving them all at once; they are aimed at preventing the situation from deteriorating further.
The Obstacles
Diplomats caution that a breakthrough is far from assured. Decades of mistrust cannot be unwound in a single meeting, and hardliners on both sides remain deeply sceptical of any engagement.
On the Iranian side, there is a long memory of the American withdrawal from the nuclear deal in 2018, which many in Tehran cite as evidence that the United States cannot be trusted to honour agreements. On the American side, there is scepticism about whether Iran is negotiating in good faith or simply buying time.
Domestic politics complicate matters on both sides. Any leader who is seen as too accommodating risks attack from political rivals, which creates a powerful incentive to avoid the appearance of concession.
A Cautiously Positive Sign
Still, the very existence of a channel is being read as a cautiously positive sign. In a region where silence often precedes escalation, the fact that dialogue continues is itself a small but meaningful victory.
History suggests that the alternative to talking is usually worse. The absence of communication increases the risk of miscalculation, because neither side can accurately read the other’s intentions. A channel, however imperfect, reduces that risk.
The talks are unlikely to produce dramatic results overnight. But if they prevent a crisis from spiralling out of control, they will have served a purpose far greater than their quiet, behind-the-scenes character would suggest.