Why US-Iran talks in Pakistan are built to fail

As US and Iranian officials prepare to meet in Pakistan on April 11, the talks come amid intensifying Israeli strikes in Lebanon, which Tehran sees as a direct violation of a key ceasefire condition. With Israel, the central actor driving the Lebanon front, absent from the negotiating table, a critical question hangs over the process: can these talks deliver any meaningful outcome?

In Short

• US-Iran to hold first talks in Islamabad since deadly strikes on Khamenei
• Key dispute centres on Lebanon, excluded from US-Israel ceasefire terms
• Analysts warn talks may fail without Israel's agreement on Lebanon

Six weeks after a devastating round of US-Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and triggered a wider regional conflict claiming more than 3,000 lives, Washington and Tehran now appear poised for a tentative diplomatic reset. Officials from both sides are scheduled to meet in Pakistan's Serena Hotel on April 11 for their first in-person talks since the escalation, an effort ostensibly aimed at crafting a durable peace framework. Yet the timing underscores the fragility of the moment: the meeting follows a Pakistan-brokered ceasefire that derailed within hours of its announcement, exposing complexities of the multilateral war.

The collapse was both swift and telling. Within hours of the ceasefire, air raid sirens echoed across Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, as missile interceptions lit up the skies. Almost simultaneously, Israel launched one of its most intense strikes on Lebanon in decades, dramatically widening the conflict’s scope and undermining any immediate prospects for de-escalation.

Tehran, a key backer of Lebanon, reacted with visible fury, signalling that continued aggression could jeopardize not only the ceasefire but also the diplomatic track itself. Earlier reports mentioned that Iran may withdraw from the peace talks in Pakistan but as per the latest update, leaders from both sides are likely to attend the meet.

WHO WILL ATTEND US-IRAN MEET IN PAKISTAN?

The involvement of the high-rank officials reflects the seriousness that both sides attack to this meet. The White House has confirmed that Vice President JD Vance will lead the American side, accompanied by President Donald Trump’s senior envoy Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Both Witkoff and Kushner have already been engaged in backchannel contacts, and are expected to play a pivotal role in shaping not just the contours, but the strategic direction of any potential agreement.

On the Iranian side, participation has been marked by visible hesitation and mixed messaging, underscoring distrust of the process. Speculation over a possible boycott intensified in the wake of continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, briefly sought to dispel those doubts, announcing on X that Tehran’s delegation would arrive on April 9 for "serious talks" grounded in a 10-point proposal. However, the subsequent deletion of his post only reinforced perceptions of uncertainty and competing power centres within Iran’s decision-making apparatus.

As of now, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf are expected to lead the Iranian delegation. Notably absent from confirmed participation is any representative of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the powerful military entity spearheading Iran’s operational response in the ongoing conflict.

The presence of a sitting US Vice President alongside Iran’s top diplomatic and parliamentary leadership elevates the talks beyond routine engagement. Both sides appear to be treating Islamabad not as a venue for exploratory dialogue, but as a high-risk, high-visibility attempt at recalibrating a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical equation.

WHY US-IRAN TALKS ARE LIKELY TO FAIL

The central fault line lies in the very reason why the ceasefire derailed almost as soon as it was announced: Lebanon.

When Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif declared the truce, he described it as "an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon and elsewhere." That framing was quickly and publicly contradicted. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while backing a pause in direct confrontation with Iran, stated that "the two-week ceasefire does not include Lebanon."

The White House reinforced this position, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying, "Lebanon is not part of the cease-fire. That has been relayed to all parties involved in it."

This is not merely a difference in interpretation. It strikes at the heart of Iran’s negotiating position. One of the key elements of Tehran’s 10-point proposal is a halt to military operations against its allied armed groups across the region, including Hezbollah. By explicitly excluding Lebanon, the US and Israel have effectively dismissed a core Iranian demand even before talks begin.

Developments on the ground have only deepened this contradiction. Israel not only continued its strikes on Lebanon after the ceasefire announcement but significantly escalated them, launching one of its heaviest bombardments in decades. Israeli strikes have killed around 1,700 people and uprooted more than a million people, according to Lebanese authorities. At least 400 Hezbollah fighters have been killed, Reuters reported.

Iran has interpreted these actions as a breach of understanding. Tehran has repeatedly argued that continued attacks in Lebanon undermine the credibility of any ceasefire framework. In repose, Iran once again closed the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials have also warned that sustained attacks could force a withdrawal from both the ceasefire and the broader diplomatic process.

Israel, however, has maintained a consistent position. While supportive of an agreement with Iran, it has made clear that its military operations in Lebanon will continue. This exposes a structural contradiction at the core of the talks. Iran, along with mediators such as Pakistan, treats the conflict as region-wide and interconnected. The US and Israel, by contrast, are attempting to confine the ceasefire to a narrower bilateral framework.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi reinforced this divide, writing, "The Iran-US Ceasefire terms are clear and explicit: the US must choose – ceasefire or continued war via Israel. It cannot have both. The world sees the massacres in Lebanon. The ball is in the US court, and the world is watching whether it will act on its commitments."

Tehran has further sharpened its stance ahead of the talks, warning that any violation of the ceasefire, particularly in Lebanon and across the "Axis of Resistance", will invite "explicit costs and strong responses." The Axis of Resistance, often referred to by Western governments as the Axis of Evil, includes a network of Iran-backed groups such as Hezbollah. For Iran, these alliances are integral to its regional strategy. For Israel, dismantling Hezbollah remains a central objective. The incompatibility of these positions leaves little room for convergence.

'ISRAEL PLAYING SPOILER'

Analysts suggest that this tension is already shaping the trajectory of the talks. Masood Khalid, a former Pakistani ambassador to China, told Al Jazeera, "Israel is playing a spoiler to undermine the process. Its relentless bombing of Lebanon is meant to trigger a scenario whereby parties further harden their positions and the process is scuttled. At this stage, we can only be cautiously optimistic as talks would surely be complicated and cumbersome and may need to be extended beyond a 15-day deadline."

Sahar Khan, a Washington, DC-based analyst, pointed to a deeper obstacle. "Lack of trust is the biggest obstacle," she said. "Right now, both Washington and Tehran are trying to demonstrate that they ‘won’ by making maximalist demands, but if this ceasefire holds and they actually meet, that will be the most important step."

She also identified Lebanon as the likely breaking point. "A sustainable settlement is only achievable if Israel stops attacking. In all the rounds of negotiations, it’s Israel that has broken them by attacking Iran. Ultimately, it’s up to the US: abandon the ceasefire and attack Iran or tell Israel to abide by the ceasefire or else," she said.

Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum, highlighted a structural flaw in the process. "Israel being a party to the war, and the one who has the most interests vested in continuing this war, needs to be part of the negotiation and the final settlement," she said. "Otherwise, they could always argue that Israelis did not agree to the terms of any agreement."

This absence continues to cast a shadow over the talks. Even as diplomatic signals emerge elsewhere, the contradictions persist. On Thursday, Netanyahu, after repeatedly vowing to continue to attack Lebanon, expressed interest in holding talks with Lebanon.

He said, "In light of Lebanon's repeated requests to open direct negotiations with Israel, I instructed the cabinet yesterday to start direct negotiations with Lebanon as soon as possible. The negotiations will focus on disarming Hezbollah and establishing peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon."

Shortly before that, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said that “the only solution to the situation in Lebanon is to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, followed by direct negotiations between them.”

Yet even this parallel opening is constrained by conditions that are unlikely to be acceptable to all sides. Israel’s insistence on disarming Hezbollah directly challenges Iran’s strategic interests, ensuring that the Lebanon question remains unresolved.

Just an hour later, Netanyahu released a video statement, saying there is no ceasefire in Lebanon and vowed to continue to strike Hezbollah, a statement that can irk Iran further.

Israel’s absence from these talks and disagreement over the Lebanon issue cast a shadow over the upcoming US-Iran talks. The disagreement is not limited to terms of engagement, but extends to the very definition of the conflict itself. As long as Lebanon remains central for one side and peripheral for the other, the gap may prove too wide for diplomacy to bridge.

- Ends