Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi arrived in Islamabad as Pakistan stepped up efforts to keep a fragile diplomatic track alive between Tehran and Washington, while Iran publicly ruled out direct talks with American government representatives during the visit. Tehran’s position was set out by foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei, who said no meeting was planned between Iran and the United States. Instead, Iran’s observations would be conveyed through Pakistan, underscoring Islamabad’s role as an intermediary rather than a venue for a direct negotiating table. The clarification came as United States envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were expected to travel to Pakistan for discussions linked to efforts to revive negotiations over a ceasefire and broader regional de-escalation.
Araghchi’s arrival followed an earlier round of high-level engagement in Islamabad that failed to produce an agreement after lengthy talks. That previous encounter had raised hopes of a diplomatic opening, but the absence of a breakthrough left the ceasefire vulnerable and increased pressure on mediators to keep channels open. The latest visit appears designed to preserve communication while allowing Tehran to avoid the political cost of direct engagement with Washington.
The diplomatic activity comes after United States President Donald Trump extended the ceasefire with Iran indefinitely, a move Washington has presented as a way to maintain space for negotiations. Tehran has rejected the extension as insufficient while arguing that a United States naval blockade of Iranian ports violates the terms of the arrangement. That dispute has become a central obstacle to progress, with Iran insisting that the blockade must be lifted before any serious return to negotiations can take place.
Pakistan’s position has become more prominent because both sides appear to need a channel that can carry messages without forcing either into an immediate concession. Islamabad has hosted earlier contacts and maintained tight security around expected diplomatic movements, including in sensitive areas of the capital. The restrictions have disrupted movement, public transport and business activity, reflecting how a wider Middle East crisis is now affecting daily life in Pakistan’s capital.
The United States is seeking movement on a proposal that would place restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment programme for a defined period before any limited resumption. Iran has not given a definitive response, and its insistence on indirect communication suggests that Tehran wants to test the terms through mediators before accepting formal talks. Washington, for its part, appears to be using Pakistan’s mediation to determine whether Iran is prepared to engage on the substance of a wider settlement.
The talks are also tied to conflicts involving Israel, Lebanon and Iran-backed groups, where ceasefire arrangements have remained unstable. Fighting involving Hezbollah and Israeli forces has continued to complicate United States efforts to broaden the truce architecture, while Tehran has treated the pause in Lebanon as part of the conditions needed for any wider settlement. The Iran file is therefore no longer confined to bilateral tensions over nuclear activity, but linked to military pressure across several fronts.
Araghchi’s itinerary, which includes consultations with Pakistan and other regional partners, gives Tehran room to present its diplomacy as regional coordination rather than engagement under United States pressure. Pakistan’s foreign ministry has described his visit as involving meetings with senior officials, while Pakistani mediators have signalled cautious optimism that messages can still move between the parties. The careful language on all sides reflects the sensitivity of any public sign that Iran is returning to talks without its conditions being addressed.
The immediate test for Islamabad is whether it can transform shuttle diplomacy into a workable negotiating format. Iran’s refusal to meet United States representatives directly does not close the door on diplomacy, but it narrows the available path. Pakistan may be able to relay positions, soften language and identify areas of overlap, yet any durable understanding will require decisions on the blockade, nuclear restrictions, regional armed groups and ceasefire monitoring.