Islamabad Talks: American and Iranian Experts Work on Points of Divergence

Marathon day for American and Iranian negotiators and experts, Saturday, in Islamabad. Arriving Friday evening in the Pakistani capital, the two delegations immediately began, each on its own side, informal discussions with high-ranking Pakistani officials who reportedly exchanged messages between the two parties to pave the way for formal, face-to-face negotiations, which began Saturday in the early afternoon.

Late in the evening, the two delegations completed two successive working sessions and announced a suspension of work that was to continue on Saturday night (which, in this type of situation, opens the way for discussions away from the spotlight) or on Sunday.

Very little information filtered through about the content of the negotiations, apart from the fact that the talks are focused on points of detail and points of divergence, hence the presence of many experts within each delegation. The principal positions of each party on the major contentious issues are known and have been the subject of long discussions in the past, during several dialogue sessions, without a common ground being found. Saturday's meetings therefore went beyond the principal positions and focused rather on points of detail, which undeniably represent the most important part of the negotiations, and which actually determine the success or failure of the negotiations.

Disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz

Late in the evening, Iranian sources indicated that the problem of the Strait of Hormuz constitutes “one of the main points of divergence during the Islamabad talks”, which implicitly indicates the existence of other subjects of disagreement between the two parties. Earlier in the day, the Financial Times had specified that negotiators had reached “an impasse over the Strait of Hormuz”.

The Iranian regime, it is noted in this context, always insists on having direct control over the strait. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps also published a communiqué at the end of the week, stating that “from now on, we will decide which ships can use the Strait of Hormuz”. A position rejected by both the United States and European countries and which is, moreover, in flagrant violation of the Montego Bay Convention (see Jean-Patrick Dayras' article on this subject).

US Navy clears the strait

It should be noted in this context that, late on Saturday, President Donald Trump indicated that US military ships were clearing the Strait of Hormuz of Iranian mines, specifying that this operation is being carried out to “serve countries around the world, including China, Japan, South Korea, France, Germany, and several other countries”. “They do not have the courage, or the will, to do it themselves,” noted the American president.

Earlier in the day, the news site Axios had indicated that US warships had crossed the Strait of Hormuz without any coordination with Iranian authorities, making a round trip to better demonstrate that they controlled the situation in that area. The head of the White House had indicated in this context that the American navy had destroyed the 28 Iranian minelaying vessels. “The Iranian navy and air force have been destroyed, as has their anti-aircraft defense,” emphasized President Trump.

In any event, the Strait of Hormuz issue was one of the main subjects examined during these Islamabad negotiations, especially since it is a new point of conflict that did not arise during previous meetings. It should be noted that the official talks on Saturday took place in the presence, on the American side, of Vice President JD Vance, and special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, as well as, on the Iranian side, the Speaker of Parliament, Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf, and the head of diplomacy Abbas Araghchi. The first working meeting was held after a tête-à-tête between Vice President Vance and Mr. Ghalibaf in the presence of a high-ranking Pakistani official.

The face-to-face negotiations, in the presence of the head of the Pakistani army, were preceded by bilateral consultations between the American delegation and the Pakistani leaders, on the one hand, and between the Iranian delegates and the Pakistani officials, on the other.

It should be noted that before their departure from Tehran, the Iranian negotiators had set two preconditions for starting their mission in Islamabad: the establishment of a ceasefire in Lebanon and the unblocking of Iranian assets frozen by the United States. Neither of these two conditions was met, but the Iranian delegates nevertheless began talks with the American delegation, despite the fact that Israeli raids continued in South Lebanon.

In Lebanon…

While American and Iranian negotiators were working in Islamabad on the points of divergence between the two parties, the Israeli air force continued its raids against Hezbollah positions and infrastructure in South Lebanon. The IDF thus indicated that it had carried out no less than 200 raids in twenty-four hours. However, the Hebrew State committed, at the request of the Americans, not to launch attacks against Hezbollah in Beirut until next Tuesday, the date of the first direct negotiation session between Lebanon and Israel.

The decision to engage in these face-to-face bilateral talks between Lebanese and Israeli delegates provoked the ire of the Iranian camp. The advisor to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic thus stigmatized the attitude of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam on this plan, even going so far as to utter barely veiled threats, warning of “security disturbances” (in Lebanon…) if the government went ahead with its decision to engage in direct negotiations with Israel. A high-ranking Hezbollah official echoed this, predicting “a popular tsunami that will overthrow the government to protest the plan for talks with Israel”.

Salam postpones his visit to Washington

On Saturday afternoon, persistent rumors reported Hezbollah's desire to organize a demonstration in Beirut and storm the Grand Serail to overthrow the government and torpedo negotiations with the Hebrew State. However, the army command was to publish, on Saturday in the early afternoon, a communiqué with a particularly firm tone, affirming that the army would intervene forcefully to prevent any attack on security and civil peace and to deal with any aggression against public and private buildings. Acting on its word, the army deployed significant regular units in the capital's neighborhoods, establishing identity checkpoints and carrying out motorized patrols. Faced with this imposing deployment of troops, Hezbollah was to retreat and published in the evening, jointly with the Amal movement, a communiqué calling on its supporters to refrain from organizing demonstrations in the capital.

However, the intense tension that prevailed on this front during the day led the Prime Minister to postpone the visit he was to make early next week to Washington to examine with American leaders the course of events on the Lebanese scene.