Ahead of the weekend negotiations in Pakistan aimed at achieving a comprehensive peace agreement to end the Middle East war, it is difficult to think of any peace talks in recent years where such a huge gap separated the sides at the outset.
Even before the US and Iranian delegations departed for Islamabad, the issue of Lebanon threatened to derail the entire process. Tehran claimed it had been close to resuming the war in response to Israel’s military strikes against its most important proxy, Hizbullah, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people.
According to Iran and Pakistan, which mediated the two-week temporary ceasefire, the truce also covered the fighting in Lebanon. Israel denied any link between the two fronts and this position was backed by Washington.
The problem seems to have been resolved for now. Although Israel and Hizbullah are continuing to exchange blows, US president Donald Trump said he asked Israel to be “more low-key”. Israel and Lebanon are due to hold their own peace talks next week, although Beirut has warned that this can only happen if there is a ceasefire first.
READ MORE
Another issue causing tension ahead of the Islamabad talks is the US demand for unhindered passage for international shipping via the Strait of Hormuz. Trump said Iran was doing a “very poor job” of allowing oil to go through the strategic waterway, which Washington claimed was part of the two-week ceasefire. “That is not the agreement we have,” Trump said, threatening consequences if the disruption continued.
Iran listed its demands for a comprehensive agreement ahead of the Pakistan talks in its 10-point plan document. They include reparations, a lifting of sanctions, the right to enrich uranium on its soil, guarantees that it will not be attacked again, authorisation to collect fees from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz and the removal of US forces from the Middle East.
Iran’s supreme national security council said in a statement that the negotiations in Islamabad will take place “with complete distrust of the American side”.
Trump originally described the Iranian proposal as “a workable basis on which to negotiate,” but Washington then claimed there were different versions circulating of the Iranian demands and that Iran had made promises in private to make key concessions.
[ JD Vance travels to Pakistan for ceasefire negotiations with IranOpens in new window ]
Washington’s demands, presented in a 15-point plan which hasn’t been published, reportedly include a ban on uranium enrichment inside Iran, the removal of the highly-enriched uranium buried under the rubble of the nuclear facilities bombed in June, a reduction in Iran’s ballistic missile programme and a commitment to stop supporting its regional proxies.
The gaps are enormous on every clause and it is difficult to see a comprehensive agreement being reached in the remaining 11 days of the two-week ceasefire period. An extension of the talks is almost inevitable, and that’s assuming there is no breakdown in the contacts before the end of the two-week period.
Trump has hinted that he may be open to allowing Iran to charge transit fees for ships passage through Hormuz. But any such agreement would violate international law, which classifies the Strait an international waterway that is not owned by any country, and would spark strong opposition from Washington’s allies in the Gulf.
The talks between Israel and Lebanon face a different obstacle. Here, the two governments are in broad agreement over the need for Hizbullah to disarm but the Beirut government, weak and fragmented, is reluctant to act against the powerful Iran-backed militia and risk plunging the country into another civil war.
