11APR

Islamabad talks open in separate rooms

3 min read

11:03UTC

The first formal US-Iran negotiating session since 1979 opened at the Serena Hotel in Islamabad on Saturday with both delegations staying in separate rooms. Pakistani officials physically walked messages between them.

← Back to Iran lost its own minefield Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Vance and Ghalibaf are in the same hotel but will not meet, by design.

Vice President JD Vance arrived at Nur Khan air base on Friday leading a 30-member US delegation that includes Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner . Iran sent Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Both delegations are staying at the Serena Hotel, where Saturday's talks are taking place, in separate rooms; Pakistani officials physically walk messages between them, and no face-to-face meeting is contemplated ¹.

The historical precedent cited by Pakistani officials is the 1988 Geneva Accords on Afghanistan, when Afghan and Pakistani delegations never met directly. Zamir Akram, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations, described Islamabad's own success bar on the record: "breathing space, not expecting anything big" ². Pakistani diplomats logged more than 25 high-level contacts in the run-up to the summit.

Ghalibaf went to meet Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif before any contact with the Americans, and Iranian state television said the "timing of talks with the US delegation will be determined after preconditions are clarified" through the Pakistani mediators ³. This is the same Ghalibaf who rejected the ceasefire framework earlier in the week and whose presence in the room gives the Supreme Leader's inner circle a pre-built justification for walking out . The format is designed to survive failure, not to produce success.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

The US and Iran have not held formal talks since the 1979 Iranian revolution made them enemies. In Islamabad, both sides are staying in the same hotel but in separate rooms — Pakistani officials physically walk messages back and forth between them, like a diplomatic version of passing notes through a classroom. This format is called a 'proximity talk'. It was chosen because both sides want to keep talking, but neither can afford to be seen sitting across a table from the other without facing severe domestic backlash. Pakistan's own goal, by its own admission, is simply to keep the conversation going — not to reach an agreement.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

The proximity format reflects a specific domestic political constraint on both sides. For Iran, direct contact with the US would require the Supreme Leader's explicit public sanction — which Mojtaba Khamenei has not given — while the presence of Ghalibaf rather than Araghchi alone signals the format was designed to maintain deniability for the leadership (ID:2113).

For the US, the Witkoff and Kushner inclusion despite prior Iranian exclusion requests signals Washington is prioritising internal coalition management over Iranian comfort. Neither side entered Islamabad intending a breakthrough; both entered intending to demonstrate good faith without committing to it.

What could happen next?

Precedent
The Islamabad format establishes that the US and Iran can conduct structured indirect communication after 47 years of no formal diplomatic channel — a floor, not a ceiling, for future contact.
Risk
Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif's deleted post calling Israel 'a cancerous state' prompted Netanyahu's office to declare Pakistan cannot serve as a neutral arbiter, undermining the format's legitimacy before substantive exchanges begin.

Source Landscape

This story draws on centre-left-leaning sources from Qatar and United States

Qatar

United States

Primary parallel: The 1988 Geneva Accords on the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan were negotiated in exactly this format: Afghan and Pakistani delegations in separate rooms with UN envoy Diego Cordovez physically shuttling between them over eight rounds spanning four years. The process produced a signed, internationally-witnessed withdrawal agreement — but only after both superpowers had already decided the outcome they wanted and used Geneva as the announcement mechanism.

Counter-parallel: The 2015 JCPOA talks in Vienna involved the same proximity format in early rounds, but produced a durable text only when US and Iranian negotiators eventually met bilaterally and directly. Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif's direct exchanges resolved the sticking points that shuttle diplomacy could not.

Consensus view: Chatham House and the International Crisis Group (Ali Vaez) both assess the proximity format as designed to produce a framework for further talks rather than any substantive agreement — the physical separation signals that neither side can afford the domestic optics of direct contact .

Counter-view: Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute argues the format understates what proximity talks can achieve: the 1988 Geneva Accords on Afghanistan were negotiated entirely through Pakistani shuttle diplomacy without Afghan and Pakistani delegations ever sitting at the same table, yet produced a binding withdrawal timeline. The format is not the constraint — the gap between the stated terms is.

Key tension: Whether the 25+ high-level Pakistani diplomatic contacts in 48 hours represent a genuine bridging effort or a face-saving structure designed to fail gracefully without either side bearing the blame.

First Reported In

Update #65 · Iran lost its own minefield

Al Jazeera· 11 Apr 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Vance Arrives for First Iran Talks

Vance's 10 April arrival at Nur Khan air base with the 30-member delegation preceded and enabled the 11 April proximity format talks opening.

Occurred 10 Apr 2026

Read story →

This Event

Islamabad talks open in separate rooms

The proximity format is designed to preserve deniability and survive failure, not to produce breakthroughs, and Pakistan's own success bar is simply keeping the process alive.

Different Perspectives

South Korean financial markets

South Korea, which imports virtually all its crude oil, is absorbing the war's economic transmission most acutely among non-belligerents. The second KOSPI circuit breaker in four sessions — with Samsung down over 10% and SK Hynix down 12.3% — reflects an industrial economy unable to reprice energy costs that have risen 72% in ten days. The market response indicates Korean industry cannot sustain oil above $100 per barrel without margin compression across manufacturing, semiconductors, and shipping.

Migrant worker communities in the Gulf

The first confirmed civilian deaths in Saudi Arabia — one Indian and one Bangladeshi killed, twelve Bangladeshis wounded — fell on communities with no voice in the military decisions that placed them in harm's way. Migrant workers live near military installations because that housing is affordable, not by choice. Bangladesh and India face the dilemma of needing to protect nationals who cannot easily leave a war zone while depending on Gulf remittances that fund a substantial share of their domestic economies.

Azerbaijan — President Ilham Aliyev

Aliyev treats the Nakhchivan strikes as a direct act of war against Azerbaijani sovereignty, placing armed forces on full combat readiness and demanding an Iranian explanation. The response is calibrated to maximise international sympathy while stopping short of military retaliation — Baku cannot fight Iran alone and needs either Turkish or NATO backing to credibly deter further strikes.

Oil-importing nations (Japan, South Korea, India)

The Hormuz closure is an existential threat. Japan, South Korea, and India receive the majority of their crude through the strait — they will bear the heaviest economic cost of a war they had no part in.

Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)

Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.

Turkey

Has absorbed three Iranian ballistic missile interceptions since 4 March without invoking NATO Article 5 consultation. Each incident narrows Ankara's political room to continue absorbing without Alliance-level response.