Iran, the United States, and Israel Test the Ceasefire Ahead of Possible Islamabad Talks

The first days following the Iran–U.S. ceasefire reveal a moment defined by contradiction: ongoing military escalation alongside discussion of a diplomatic breakthrough. Despite visible violations, rising tensions in Lebanon, and deep mistrust between the parties, the parties may still test whether this fragile pause can be transformed into a broader agreement. There is reason for both pessimism, given the deep disputes between the recently-warring parties, and optimism, because none of the key actors has chosen to abandon diplomacy.

While Iranian officials have traveled to Islamabad, Pakistan ahead of talks with U.S. officials who are en route, it is unclear whether negotiations will transpire. Senior Iranian officials, including Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, have explicitly stated that two preconditions for negotiations remain unmet: the establishment of a ceasefire in Lebanon and the release of Iran’s frozen assets. While a ceasefire in Lebanon was clearly part of the arrangement brokered by Pakistan’s prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, a dispute over Iranian frozen assets appears not to have been part of the publicly-disclosed terms.

At the head of U.S. diplomatic efforts is U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, who is leading the American delegation to Islamabad. Vance has described the mission as highly challenging, signaling both cautious optimism while warning that U.S. flexibility depends on Iran negotiating in good faith. He is also under domestic pressure to deliver an outcome that can be framed as a victory. The participation of the American Vice President would be the highest-level diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Iran in decades, occurring after outright warfare and amid significant public sparring over the contours of the ceasefire and basis for negotiations.

Deep disagreements remain over the framework of negotiations. Iranian officials have reiterated that their “10-point plan” will serve as the basis for talks, while the White House has strongly dismissed elements of that same proposal, highlighting a fundamental gap in expectations even before negotiations begin. These disputes will likely significantly dampen momentum toward a deal.

At the core of current developments is a critical question: do both Washington and Tehran still see value in continuing negotiations, even as they dispute the terms and scope of the ceasefire? Preparations for talks, including efforts to organize a new round of diplomacy in Islamabad, indicate that the negotiation track remains active and politically relevant. However, this track remains highly uncertain: Iranian officials have stated that the negotiations are “not yet finalized,” and reports of the Iranian delegation’s arrival in Pakistan were even denied and removed, underscoring the fluid and unsettled nature of the process. At the same time, this is not a traditional ceasefire environment. Rather, it is a dual-track phase in which diplomacy and confrontation are unfolding simultaneously.

Iran’s latest leadership messaging clarifies its strategic posture in this phase. Tehran is prepared to enter negotiations, but not from a position of concession. The message frames diplomacy as part of a broader struggle, emphasizing that even if military confrontation temporarily subsides, public mobilization and internal cohesion remain essential tools of leverage in negotiations. This approach indicates that Iran views diplomacy as an extension of battlefield dynamics rather than a departure from them, and that core red lines - including sovereignty and strategic capabilities - will remain firmly in place.

One of the most consequential elements of this messaging is the explicit emphasis on the Strait of Hormuz. Iran signals that it intends to “enter a new phase of managing the Strait of Hormuz,” elevating the waterway from a tactical pressure point to a central strategic instrument. This shift has significant implications: global energy flows and maritime security are now directly tied to the success or failure of negotiations, and Iran’s leverage over both regional actors and international markets has increased accordingly. At the same time, uncertainty remains over whether any diplomatic outcome can quickly reopen maritime stability or reduce oil prices, highlighting the unresolved economic dimension of the crisis. In parallel, disruptions in shipping and rising international concern - including U.S. efforts to secure external support for maritime security - underscore that Hormuz has become one of the most important bargaining chips in the evolving diplomatic process.

At the same time, the most immediate threat to this fragile opening is unfolding in Lebanon. Israel’s intensified military operations, which have resulted in significant casualties and widespread destruction, have placed the ceasefire under severe strain. Recent Israeli strikes have reportedly targeted ambulances and emergency vehicles in southern Lebanon following claims that Hezbollah was using such assets for military purposes, further escalating tensions and raising humanitarian concerns. While Israel maintains that its actions target Hezbollah and appears to have convinced President Trump to assert that Lebanon was not included in the original ceasefire framework, Iran has made clear that Lebanon and the broader “axis of resistance” are inseparable from any meaningful ceasefire arrangement. Iran’s position is backed by language from the Pakistani Prime Minister announcing the ceasefire. This fundamental disagreement is not peripheral; it strikes at the core of whether the current diplomatic track can survive.

Israel’s behavior reflects a dual strategy. On one hand, it continues to escalate militarily, signaling determination to degrade Hezbollah’s capabilities. On the other, it has expressed readiness to pursue direct negotiations with Lebanon in the near term, focusing on the disarmament of Hezbollah. Lebanese officials have indicated that such direct talks could take place as early as next week, but only if a prior ceasefire is firmly established.

The United States now faces a critical balancing act. If Washington seeks to preserve the ceasefire and convert it into a broader diplomatic success, it will likely need to restrain Israeli operations in Lebanon, whether publicly or behind the scenes. President Trump noted yesterday that he spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and that Israel promised to “low key” their operations in Lebanon. Yet, this is far from solid assurance. Continued escalation risks undermining negotiations, increasing regional instability, and exacerbating global economic disruptions linked to energy markets and maritime routes. At the same time, Washington has shown little ability to act decisively and independently.

Taken together, the current situation can best be understood as a form of controlled instability. Iran is signaling readiness to negotiate while maintaining and even expanding its leverage, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. Israel is escalating militarily while positioning itself for future diplomacy. The United States is attempting to hold both tracks together, seeking to balance freedom of operation for Israel with keeping an option for diplomacy.

The most realistic short-term outlook is therefore mixed. Israeli operations in Lebanon may continue and may trigger reprisals from Iran. Recent Hezbollah rocket attacks toward northern Israel, reportedly in response to ceasefire violations, demonstrate how quickly escalation can resume. Iran may participate in negotiations, though with deep mistrust and firm conditions, making a breakthrough difficult - particularly in light of apparent Trump reversals. The Strait of Hormuz will remain central to both the risks and the opportunities of this moment, shaping the incentives of all parties involved.

This is not a stable peace but rather a negotiation window under pressure. The defining feature of this moment is that negotiation and confrontation are no longer separate phases, they are unfolding simultaneously.