Vance and Iran’s Parliament Speaker Meet in Islamabad to Try to Extend U.S.–Iran Truce

ISLAMABAD — Air Force Two touched down in Islamabad just hours after an Iranian government jet, bringing two rival delegations to the same city for talks that would have been hard to imagine only weeks ago.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance and Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf arrived in Pakistan’s capital on Saturday for face‑to‑face negotiations aimed at turning a fragile two‑week truce into a broader ceasefire between Washington and Tehran.

Pakistan is hosting and mediating what multiple outlets describe as the most senior, publicly acknowledged U.S.–Iran engagement since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The meetings come as a conflict that erupted in late February has disrupted global oil supplies, driven prices toward $100 a barrel and raised fears of a wider regional war.

High‑level delegations on neutral ground

The Iranian delegation, led by Ghalibaf and including Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, flew into the Islamabad–Rawalpindi area late Friday or early Saturday, according to Pakistani and regional media. Araghchi is a veteran diplomat who helped lead previous nuclear negotiations with world powers.

Vance, leading the U.S. team, departed Washington on Friday and landed in Islamabad on Saturday aboard Air Force Two. Coverage in U.S. media has identified at least two senior figures traveling with him: special envoy Steve Witkoff and former White House adviser Jared Kushner.

The presence of the U.S. vice president and the speaker of Iran’s parliament underlines how much political capital both capitals are investing in the effort. While American and Iranian officials have met at high levels in multilateral settings in past years, direct, public talks led by figures of this rank have been rare since 1979.

Pakistan’s government has cast the moment as both a diplomatic opportunity and a test. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who personally welcomed the delegations along with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and senior military officials, called the talks a “make‑or‑break” moment and a “proud” one for Pakistan and the wider Muslim world in televised remarks.

Authorities in Islamabad tightened security across the capital and introduced temporary visa‑on‑arrival procedures for delegates and selected journalists to facilitate the talks.

A ceasefire with contested boundaries

The Islamabad meetings follow a Pakistan‑brokered, two‑week ceasefire announced earlier in the week. That truce is intended to pause direct hostilities between the United States and Iran and create space for negotiations.

Exactly what the ceasefire covers, however, is already in dispute — and that disagreement is likely to dominate the early sessions.

Iranian and Pakistani officials say the understanding includes limits on Israeli military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, a key ally of Tehran. U.S. and Israeli officials have publicly rejected that interpretation, insisting that the pause applies to direct U.S.–Iran confrontations and related attacks, not to Israel’s separate campaign in Lebanon.

The ambiguity matters because Iran’s leadership has begun to tie its participation at the table to the Lebanon front and to sanctions relief.

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, on April 10, Ghalibaf wrote: “Two of the measures mutually agreed upon between the parties have yet to be implemented: a ceasefire in Lebanon and the release of Iran’s blocked assets prior to the commencement of negotiations. These two matters must be fulfilled before negotiations begin.”

That message, reproduced by multiple international outlets, suggests Tehran expects movement on both Lebanese hostilities and frozen Iranian funds before substantive talks go ahead.

Hard lines and limited time

Vance, speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force Two on Friday, struck a cautious tone about the prospects for progress.

“If the Iranians are willing to negotiate in good faith, we’re certainly willing to extend the open hand,” he said. “If they’re going to try to play us, then they’re going to find that the negotiating team is not that receptive.”

His remarks signal that Washington wants to frame the talks around the immediate ceasefire and security concerns, and is wary of what U.S. officials often describe as Iranian tactics of tying multiple issues together to gain leverage.

Any U.S. commitment to unfreeze Iranian assets would likely involve complex sanctions decisions and could trigger domestic political scrutiny. Iran, for its part, faces pressure from hard‑line factions that view the conflict as an opportunity to assert regional influence and resist American and Israeli military pressure.

The talks also unfold on a tight timeline. The current truce, brokered around April 7–8, is limited to two weeks. Without at least an agreement in principle to extend it, both sides could soon resume strikes that began with major U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian targets on Feb. 28.

Oil, shipping and the risk of escalation

While the Islamabad meetings are diplomatic in nature, their impact will be felt far beyond the negotiating rooms.

Since the conflict erupted, commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — the narrow waterway that handles a significant share of the world’s seaborne oil — has dropped sharply amid threats to shipping and higher insurance costs. International media reported Brent crude trading near $97 a barrel as traders watched the talks closely for any sign the security environment might stabilize.

A durable ceasefire would ease immediate pressure on oil markets, reduce the risk of attacks on tankers and energy infrastructure, and offer some relief to governments already grappling with higher fuel costs and inflation. Failure, or even a perception that the talks are collapsing, could push prices higher and deepen fears of a broader war drawing in Lebanon, Gulf states and U.S. regional bases.

The Lebanon question is especially sensitive. Iran has portrayed a ceasefire there as essential to any broader de‑escalation, reflecting its longstanding support for Hezbollah and its desire to shield allied forces from Israeli strikes. The United States has so far rejected linking its own ceasefire with Iran to Israel’s military decisions, arguing that those are separate issues, even as Washington remains a key Israeli ally.

Pakistan’s gamble

For Pakistan, the Islamabad talks are a chance to assert itself as a mediator at a moment when few countries maintain working relationships with both Washington and Tehran.

Sharif’s government helped broker the initial two‑week pause and has sought to position Pakistan as a bridge in the Muslim world and a stabilizing force amid regional turmoil. Success could raise Islamabad’s international profile and bolster its standing with Gulf partners and Western governments alike.

The risks are considerable. If the talks fail and hostilities resume or escalate, Pakistan could face criticism from one or both sides and potential domestic blowback if violence spills over into its immediate neighborhood or if militant groups seek to exploit the situation.

For now, the delegations are in place, the truce is holding, and the parameters of the dispute are unusually public. Whether that transparency helps narrow differences over Lebanon, frozen assets and the scope of the ceasefire — or simply hardens positions — will determine whether Islamabad becomes a turning point in the U.S.–Iran confrontation or just another stop on a long path of mistrust.