Pakistan offers to host US-Iran talks: what to know
Pakistan has offered to host talks between the United States and Iran aimed at ending a war that has rattled global energy markets. Here’s why Islamabad is involved—and whether it could work.
Pakistan has offered to host talks between the United States and Iran aimed at ending a war that has rattled global energy markets. Here’s why Islamabad is involved—and whether it could work.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Tuesday that Islamabad was “ready and honoured to be the host” for direct or indirect negotiations if both sides agree.
The proposal comes amid reports that Pakistan has been relaying messages between the two sides and could potentially host discussions if they progress to that stage.
Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, spoke with President Donald Trump on March 23, while Sharif held a phone call with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian the following day as part of a push for de-escalation.
Trump announced a five-day pause in planned strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure on Monday, saying there had been “productive conversations” about potential diplomacy. Iranian officials, however, insist no direct negotiations with Washington have taken place.
Pakistan is one of several countries—alongside Turkey and Egypt—that appear to be passing messages between Washington and Tehran while encouraging diplomatic contacts.
What role is Pakistan playing?
Pakistan is positioning itself as both messenger and potential host.
Its prime minister and army chief have spoken with leaders in Washington and Tehran while publicly offering Islamabad as a venue should talks take place.
Pakistani officials describe the effort as part of broader back-channel diplomacy aimed at reducing tensions.
Why Pakistan?
Pakistan maintains working relationships with both Iran and the United States, giving it unusual access to the two governments.
Since 1992, Iran’s interests section in Washington—which handles limited diplomatic matters after the two countries severed relations in 1980—has operated under the protection of the Pakistani embassy.
Pakistan also has political and military ties with the United States. That combination allows Islamabad to communicate with both sides while avoiding the perception that it is fully aligned with either.
Has Pakistan tried this before?
Yes, though usually behind the scenes.
In 2019, then-Prime Minister Imran Khan publicly offered to mediate during a period of heightened US-Iran tensions after speaking with leaders in both countries.
Pakistan has periodically offered to help ease regional tensions, though mediation efforts have rarely moved beyond preliminary diplomacy.
Will it actually lead to negotiations?
That remains uncertain.
Iranian officials have publicly insisted that no negotiations with Washington are taking place. The White House has also avoided confirming any talks, saying it will not negotiate through the media.
Israel has meanwhile signaled that its military operations against Iran will continue regardless of diplomatic developments.
Pakistan’s proposal therefore represents a potential diplomatic channel rather than a confirmed breakthrough. Whether talks materialize will depend on whether Washington and Tehran conclude that diplomacy offers a way to limit the conflict.
The decisive moment in a regime’s collapse is often not the formal end, but the tipping point before it: the moment when the state’s aura of inevitability breaks.
Borders may still be guarded, television may still broadcast, officials may still issue decrees. But something more important has changed. The system no longer functions with confidence.
That pattern runs through modern history. Regimes die when authority thins out, and the forces meant to preserve the system begin to hesitate, fracture, defect or simply wait.
In Russia in 1917, the monarchy’s fate was sealed not only by crowds in the streets but by the refusal of troops and Cossacks to suppress them.
In Iran in 1979, the Shah’s regime effectively ended when the armed forces declared neutrality.
In Romania in 1989, Nicolae Ceaușescu’s fall accelerated when the army switched sides.
In East Germany, the Berlin Wall lost its political meaning the moment the border opening made it unenforceable.
In each case, the end came after something deeper had already broken: the state’s confidence in its own ability to command obedience.
The sequence before collapse
This is why a tipping point is best understood not as a date but as a sequence.
First comes long erosion: economic decline, loss of legitimacy, social anger, distrust inside the ruling camp.
Then comes a catalytic shock: a massacre, a fraudulent election, military defeat, a failed coup, or the death of the ruler around whom the system had been built.
Then comes the most important stage and the hardest to measure: the failed restoration of authority.
The regime still projects continuity, but no longer convincingly. It can still threaten, still punish, still broadcast. But it no longer reassures. Its command no longer feels unquestioned.
Only after that comes the formal end.
Iran’s compressed crisis
Iran’s recent trajectory fits that sequence with unusual force, appearing to compress into weeks the kinds of shocks that in other systems were spread over months or even years.
The country entered 2026 already weakened by deep economic distress and nationwide protest. Then came the January 8-9 crackdown.
More than 36,500 were killed, according to classified material Iran International reviewed. Other reporting and rights group assessments also describe the episode as mass killings on an extraordinary scale.
Mass killing can restore fear for a time. It can also destroy legitimacy more deeply and more permanently.
The next shock was even more consequential.
On 28 February, joint US-Israeli strikes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, abruptly removing the central figure around whom the Islamic Republic had organized authority for decades.
That alone did not prove regime collapse. Systems can survive the loss of a leader if they can replace him quickly and credibly. But that is precisely where the next problem began.
The succession that followed looked less like a confident transfer of power than an emergency move under pressure.
Iran International reported that the IRGC pushed to install a successor outside normal legal procedures amid disarray in the chain of command and fears that people could return to the streets.
Mojtaba Khamenei’s elevation preserved the office, but did not clearly restore authority. A succession in such a system is meant to reassure the Islamic Republic’s core that command still exists and that the center is still holding.
Yet Mojtaba has remained unseen in any ordinary sense. His messages were still being issued only in writing or read by state television anchors over still images, with no direct public appearance or recorded voice.
In a system built around the symbolism and physical presence of supreme authority, that matters. A ruler who does not appear can hold a title, but cannot easily project command.
That, in turn, changes how the growing centrality of the Revolutionary Guards should be read. If the IRGC now appears to dominate more of the state, that does not necessarily mean the system is stronger. It may mean the opposite: that the wider governing structure has hollowed out and power has narrowed to its coercive core.
Even that core shows signs of strain.
Reports of disrupted chains of command, internal criticism of senior commanders, personnel failing to report to bases, and diplomats seeking asylum do not yet prove a terminal fracture. But they are the kinds of signals that often appear before loyalty begins to shift more openly.
What can appear as consolidation may, in fact, be contraction.
The moment before the streets
This is also why the absence of a full-scale uprising does not necessarily mean the Islamic Republic has restored confidence.
In collapsing systems, people do not always move at the first sign of weakness. They wait until repression looks less certain, until command appears thinner, until they believe the next confrontation may end differently from the last.
The decisive moment often comes not when society becomes angriest, but when the security forces are no longer sure they can, should, or will do what they did before.
That memory matters in Iran. January showed what happens when the state still has a functioning command structure and is prepared to kill on a massive scale. But the present moment is not January.
The command structure has been hit. The top leadership has been decapitated. The succession has not visibly restored confidence. The war has intensified military, political, and fiscal strain.
Quiet streets, in such a moment, do not necessarily mean submission. They may mean waiting for the right threshold.
What history suggests
None of this means the Islamic Republic’s end is settled. Regimes can survive extraordinary shocks, especially when coercion remains lethal and opposition forces lack a unified organizational center inside the country.
But history suggests a useful distinction. A system is often most vulnerable when it has been reduced to force alone.
That is often the stage at which the outer signs of continuity become misleading. The offices still function. Orders are still issued. Missiles may still fly. But the wider architecture that gave those acts political meaning has begun to fail.
The question is no longer simply whether the Islamic Republic still exists on paper. It does.
The more important question is whether it still functions as a regime in the full sense: with authority that travels clearly, loyalty that holds under pressure, and institutions that do more than keep violence in motion.
History suggests that when those things begin to fail together, the tipping point is no longer far behind.
Russia’s foreign ministry said on Monday it opposed any blockade of the waterway but added that the situation should be viewed within a broader global context, according to Interfax.
China urged all sides to halt military activity and return to negotiations, warning that continued confrontation risks destabilizing the region.
“Should hostilities continue to escalate and the situation deteriorate further, the entire region will be plunged into chaos,” foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said. “The use of force will only lead to a vicious cycle.”
Disruptions shake energy markets
Recent limits on shipping through the strait have disrupted energy flows and driven oil prices higher, highlighting the route’s role as a conduit for roughly one-fifth of global crude and liquefied natural gas.
The disruption follows rising tensions that have curtailed maritime traffic and raised concerns among energy-importing countries over prolonged supply constraints.
US President Donald Trump on Monday said he would postpone planned strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure after what he described as constructive talks with Tehran.
“Based on the tenor and tone of these in-depth, detailed, and constructive conversations, I have instructed the Department of War to postpone any and all military strikes against Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for a five-day period,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The remark follows his earlier 48-hour ultimatum warning Iran to reopen the strait or face military action targeting its energy sector.
This comes weeks after large-scale US and Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, senior commanders and destroying military infrastructure.
Iran sets terms for access
Iran’s Defense Council said on Monday that passage through the strait would depend on coordination with Tehran for countries it described as non-belligerent.
“The only way to pass through the Strait of Hormuz for non-belligerent states is by coordinating passage with Iran,” the council said.
The statement warned that any attack on Iran’s energy infrastructure would draw a strong response and raised the possibility of mining maritime routes if Iranian territory were targeted.
Diplomatic push to keep waterway open
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said 22 countries were working together to ensure the strait remains open, reflecting growing international concern.
Earlier this month, China held discussions with Iran aimed at securing safe passage for oil and liquefied natural gas tankers through the Strait of Hormuz as the conflict intensified, according to three diplomatic sources talking to Reuters.
