Iran has chosen an indirect negotiation framework with the United States instead of direct talks.

At Pakistan’s proposal, discussions are now continuing through intermediaries, while Oman and Russia are also playing roles in facilitating communication. At the same time, technical-level negotiations are proceeding in parallel.

Key Points

Iran and the United States have opted for indirect negotiations following domestic backlash in Iran against direct talks. The format has changed, but dialogue continues.

Iran has not backed down; rather, it has adjusted its strategy. Indirect negotiations provide a way to continue engagement while addressing internal sensitivities.

The absence of direct talks does not signify failure; instead, it is a deliberate strategy. Historically, progress in complex conflicts often begins through indirect channels.

Negotiations are ongoing through mediators, allowing both sides to remain engaged without facing immediate political pressure. Meanwhile, technical discussions among experts are also continuing alongside.

The multilateral facilitation by Pakistan, Oman, and Russia is creating a strong communication framework, reducing the risk of deadlock.

Pakistan is playing a central role by positioning itself as a bridge—enabling dialogue, maintaining neutrality, and supporting efforts to reduce tensions.

The narrative of a diplomatic stalemate is misleading; negotiations are active, phased, and strategically managed.

Phased diplomacy allows both sides to test positions, build trust, and manage domestic pressures before moving toward direct negotiations.

This is not a failure of diplomacy, but a structured and carefully planned negotiation framework in which Pakistan is emerging as a key facilitator helping sustain dialogue and prevent escalation.