As the war between Iran, Israel, and the United States intensifies in March 2026, a parallel battle is unfolding—not on the battlefield, but in the realm of diplomacy. Conflicting claims have created a fog of uncertainty: Washington insists that negotiations are underway, while Tehran repeatedly denies that any talks exist. According to Iranian officials have clearly stated that “no negotiations have taken place”, even as US President Donald Trump claims progress toward a deal.
This contradiction is not accidental. It reflects a deeper geopolitical reality: multiple actors want a deal—but none want to appear weak by admitting it publicly. The result is a complex diplomatic theatre where messaging, perception, and timing are as important as actual negotiations.
The United States: Seeking a Deal Without Appearing to Retreat
At the center of the diplomatic push is the United States, which has reportedly sent a 15-point proposal to Iran through intermediaries, including Pakistan. The plan reportedly addresses critical issues such as Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, and regional influence.
Yet, Washington’s strategy appears contradictory. While pushing for talks, it continues military operations alongside Israel. This dual-track approach—negotiation under pressure—suggests that the US is not merely seeking peace, but rather a strategic settlement on its own terms.
President Trump’s repeated statements that talks are “ongoing” serve multiple purposes:
- Reassuring global markets amid rising oil prices
- Signaling diplomatic intent to allies
- Pressuring Iran into appearing as the obstacle to peace
However, this messaging has also triggered skepticism. Iranian officials believe the US may be using the idea of negotiations as a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine peace initiative.
Iran: Resistance in Public, Calculation in Private
Iran’s position appears firm on the surface: no talks, no compromise, and continued resistance. But beneath this rhetoric lies a more nuanced reality.
Tehran has not rejected diplomacy outright—it has instead outsourced communication to intermediaries, including Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt. This indirect engagement allows Iran to:
- Avoid appearing weak domestically
- Maintain ideological consistency
- Test US intentions without formal commitment
At the same time, Iran’s demands—such as sanctions relief, security guarantees, and limits on US regional presence—indicate that it is preparing negotiating positions, even if it publicly denies talks.
The key issue for Iran is trust. Past experiences, including previous negotiations followed by military escalation, have made Tehran deeply suspicious of US intentions. As a result, Iran’s strategy can be summarized as:
“Negotiate indirectly, but never concede publicly.”
Pakistan’s Role: The Silent Mediator at the Center of Diplomacy
Amid this diplomatic deadlock, Pakistan has emerged as a crucial intermediary—and perhaps the most optimistic actor regarding a potential deal.
Islamabad has:
- Conveyed US proposals to Iran
- Offered to host peace talks
- Engaged in active shuttle diplomacy with regional players
Pakistan’s leadership has openly expressed readiness to facilitate “meaningful and conclusive” negotiations, positioning itself as a neutral bridge between Washington and Tehran.
Why Pakistan Believes a Deal Is Possible
Pakistan’s confidence is not based on idealism—but on strategic calculation.
First, Pakistan maintains working relationships with both sides. It has longstanding ties with the United States, while also sharing borders, economic links, and diplomatic channels with Iran. This unique positioning allows it to understand both narratives and translate between them.
Second, Pakistan is already acting as a communication channel. The fact that messages are being exchanged through Islamabad is, in itself, a form of indirect negotiation.
Third, Pakistan is under economic pressure. The ongoing war has disrupted global energy markets, directly affecting countries like Pakistan that rely heavily on imported oil. For Islamabad, a deal is not just desirable—it is necessary.
Finally, Pakistan’s diplomatic strategy reflects a broader doctrine: avoid military entanglement while maximizing diplomatic relevance. Analysts describe this approach as “limited alignment without direct involvement,” allowing Pakistan to remain credible to all sides.
Why a Deal Seems Likely—Despite Public Denials
At first glance, the situation appears contradictory: ongoing war, escalating strikes, and outright denial of talks. Yet, several indicators suggest that a deal is more likely than it appears.
One key factor is the involvement of multiple mediators. Countries like Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt are actively facilitating communication, creating a multi-layered diplomatic network that reduces the risk of complete breakdown.
Another factor is economic pressure. The war has already:
- Disrupted global oil flows
- Increased energy prices
- Threatened key shipping routes like the Strait of Hormuz
These pressures are unsustainable for all parties, including the United States, Iran, and their regional allies.
Additionally, the US itself has shown signs of flexibility. Reports indicate that Washington has softened its rhetoric and delayed certain military actions, signaling openness to de-escalation if conditions are met.
Even Iran’s indirect engagement suggests that it is keeping diplomatic options open, despite its public stance.
Trust Deficit and Strategic Timing
Despite these positive indicators, the biggest obstacle to a deal remains the lack of trust.
Iran fears that negotiations could be used as a cover for further military action.
The US doubts Iran’s willingness to limit its nuclear and missile programs.
Israel, meanwhile, is not part of the diplomatic push and continues its military operations, complicating any potential agreement.
This creates a situation where:
- Everyone sees value in a deal
- No one trusts the process
As a result, negotiations are likely to remain indirect, slow, and fragile.
A Deal Everyone Wants—but No One Admits
The current crisis reveals a paradox at the heart of modern geopolitics:
All sides appear to want a deal—but none want to admit it openly.
The United States seeks a strategic settlement.
Iran seeks relief without appearing weak.
Pakistan seeks stability and diplomatic relevance.
In this complex equation, Pakistan’s belief in a deal is not misplaced. It is based on real indicators:
- Active backchannel communications
- Economic urgency
- Diplomatic engagement by multiple actors
However, the path to a deal will not be straightforward. It will likely emerge through quiet negotiations, indirect messaging, and gradual de-escalation—rather than a dramatic breakthrough.
