Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said on Saturday Israel’s continued strikes inside Lebanon are a key source of regional tension as Iran and the United States hold negotiations in Islamabad, according to semi-official Mehr news agency.
Pezeshkian urged the United States and other countries to pressure Israel to halt the attacks.
Pro-government influencer Ali Gholhaki said on Saturday the US is demanding the exit of 400 kg of uranium from Iran — "the same stockpile it failed to seize in a previous military operation" — along with 0% enrichment and full management of the Strait of Hormuz.
"A test today on the strait met a firm Iranian rejection. No US commitments on Lebanon, indicating Washington did not come for genuine negotiations," he posted on X.
Another round of negotiations between Iran and the United States in Islamabad has ended after 14 hours.
The two sides are now exchanging text messages with teams of experts present, Iran’s Ambassador to Saudi Arabia Ali Reza Enayati posted on X.
US and Iranian delegations remain in talks at Serena Hotel past 1:57 AM after nearly 10 hours, with some breaks and dinner.
A framework for regional security, humanitarian reconstruction and frozen funds has been set, journalist Gabriella Colarusso said on X. "The hardest issue remains the Strait of Hormuz, where other regional and global actors could play a decisive role," she added.
The status of the Strait of Hormuz will remain unchanged until Iran and the United States agree on a “common framework” to continue negotiations, an Iranian security source told CNN on Saturday.
The source said “excessive demands” from the US side on several issues, including the strategic waterway, have so far prevented the two sides from establishing a shared basis to move talks forward.
Iran has sent a negotiating team to the Islamabad talks with the United States spanning an unusually broad political spectrum—suggesting a possibly calculated effort to pre-empt future hardline backlash while pursuing negotiations.
The delegation which held lengthy talks with the US team in Islamabad on Saturday includes not only Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf and his political allies but also Ali-Akbar Ahmadian, Secretary of the Defence Council, and more moderate technocrats such as Central Bank of Iran Governor Abdolnaser Hemmati.
However, the presence of Mahmoud Nabavian—a hardline parliamentarian known for his staunch opposition to negotiations with the West—has generated particular surprise.
Nabavian, a cleric affiliated with the ultra-conservative Paydari (Steadfastness) Party, has for years denounced figures like Mohammad-Javad Zarif and the relatively moderate government of Hassan Rouhani as “traitors” for pursuing the 2015 nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
His inclusion in the delegation appears to be interpreted as a calculated move by Ghalibaf. By bringing a vocal critic of negotiations into the process, he may be attempting to share responsibility for the outcome and pre-empt future criticism from hardline factions that wield significant influence within Iran’s political and military structures.
With figures like Nabavian involved, any eventual agreement—or failure to reach one— is less easily attributed to a single political camp.
According to political activist Hossein Shirzad, the delegation’s structure suggests a broader objective beyond traditional diplomacy. “The composition of the delegation … indicates that negotiations are aimed at presenting a ‘political business plan’ to Donald Trump’s representatives for Iran’s future,” he wrote on X. He added that “the discussions are likely about the quality of an agreement, not the agreement itself.”
Shirzad also claimed that “the issue has already been resolved behind the scenes. Ghalibaf wants to prove that he has the expertise and executive capability to manage Iran and control the remaining structure. He is seeking personal and factional guarantees.”
Mojtaba's green light
Despite the significance of the negotiations, Iran’s new supreme leader has not issued an explicit public endorsement.
However, in a written message marking the fortieth day after his father’s death, Mojtaba Khamenei referred to the “announcement of the decision to negotiate with the enemy” and called for public mobilization to influence the outcome, remarks that many interpret as implicit approval of the negotiation process.
He also referenced verses from Surah Al-Fath in the Quran, alluding to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah—a peace agreement between Prophet Muhammad and his adversaries in Mecca. In Islamic tradition, this treaty is seen as a strategic move that reduced conflict and ultimately strengthened Muslims despite their weaker position at the time.
Such symbolic references carry strong weight among the Islamic Republic’s ideological base.
Ghalibaf and his rivals in the conservative camp
Divisions and rivalry within Iran's conservative camp remain pronounced. On one side stands Ghalibaf and his pragmatic allies—often described as technocratic conservatives—who advocate negotiation from a position of strength. They reject ultimatums but view diplomacy as a rational tool for managing tensions and reducing external pressure, with indirect talks seen as the most viable path under current conditions.
For Ghalibaf, success in these talks could significantly bolster his political standing after multiple failed bids for the presidency over the past two decades. A diplomatic breakthrough could help secure his position as a leading figure in Iran’s future political landscape.
On the other side are more radical conservatives, including Saeed Jalili and factions such as the Paydari Party, who have consistently opposed any engagement with the United States. These groups have framed past agreements as “surrender” and continue to adopt a hardline stance.
Jalili has remained notably silent in recent days, fueling speculation in political circles that under the new leadership he may have been replaced in his role at the Supreme National Security Council by Ali Bagheri-Kani, also present alongside the delegation.
Hardline opposition beyond political elites
Hardline opposition extends beyond political elites into public discourse. In street protests and on social media, critics have condemned any potential agreement as a sign of “humiliation” and “betrayal of the leader’s blood.”
In one widely circulated video, a speaker denounced Ghalibaf’s trip to Pakistan for talks with JD Vance, prompting crowds to chant “Hayhat Min al-Dhilla” (“Never accept humiliation”)—a phrase historically attributed to Imam Hussain on the Day of Ashura.
State media also reflects this tension. While negotiations are widely understood to require leadership approval, some broadcasters have continued to voice dissent.
For instance, a presenter on IRGC-affiliated Ofogh TV questioned the rationale for talks, asking: “If the Zionist regime has violated the ceasefire, based on which commitment should we remain silent and go negotiate? Three of Iran’s ten conditions for negotiation have been violated.”
Even so, other voices within state media have pointed to historical precedents, noting that several Shia Imams engaged in dialogue or cooperation with their adversaries, suggesting that negotiation, in itself, is not incompatible with ideological principles.