However, other reporting indicates negotiations remain unresolved. As of mid‑May, Pakistani officials were still passing revised Iranian proposals to Washington, warning that both sides were struggling to narrow their differences.

Earlier discussions focused on a short memorandum or framework deal rather than a full settlement. Such a document would halt fighting first and then launch negotiations on more complex issues like nuclear restrictions and sanctions relief.

Pakistan’s Role as the Main Mediator

Pakistan has emerged as the key diplomatic channel between Tehran and Washington.

• Islamabad has hosted the only direct peace talks so far and continues to relay proposals and responses between the two sides.
• Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly confirmed that Iran delivered its response to a U.S. proposal through Pakistani mediators.
• Pakistani officials and military leadership have also worked to resolve “sticky issues” such as ceasefire terms and nuclear negotiations.

This shuttle diplomacy has effectively made Pakistan the main conduit for indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran during the conflict.

The US Position and Role of the White House

The U.S. administration has taken a dual approach: diplomatic engagement paired with continued military pressure.

President Donald Trump has pushed publicly for a rapid agreement but has also warned of renewed military action if Iran’s responses do not meet U.S. demands.

Reports indicate the White House has been reviewing Iranian proposals while consulting with national security advisers about possible next steps, including whether negotiations should continue or pressure should increase.

This strategy reflects Washington’s attempt to end hostilities while securing commitments related to Iran’s nuclear program and regional security.

Major Sticking Points in the Negotiations

Despite diplomatic momentum, several issues remain unresolved.

1. Ceasefire Terms

A fragile ceasefire has existed since early April 2026, when the United States and Iran agreed to a temporary truce mediated by Pakistan. Violations by both sides have been reported, and the truce has required extensions while negotiations continue.

Most proposals follow a two‑stage structure: first an immediate ceasefire, then negotiations on a broader political settlement.

2. Nuclear Program and Sanctions

Iran’s nuclear program remains the most contentious issue.

Tehran has demanded concessions including the release of frozen Iranian funds and relief from sanctions, while Washington insists on stronger commitments regarding uranium enrichment and nuclear oversight.

Because these positions are difficult to reconcile, many proposals postpone final nuclear arrangements until after hostilities stop.

3. The Strait of Hormuz

Control and security of the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes—are central to the negotiations.

Several diplomatic frameworks link the ceasefire to reopening maritime traffic through the strait and stabilizing shipping lanes disrupted during the conflict.

Iran has also indicated that reopening the strait could depend on broader guarantees, including a permanent ceasefire rather than a temporary truce.

Market and Economic Reactions

Because roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply normally moves through the Strait of Hormuz, each diplomatic signal has immediate economic consequences.

• Oil prices have fallen at times when new peace proposals suggested possible de‑escalation.
• Financial markets have also reacted to uncertainty, with Wall Street pulling back when talks appeared stalled.

Investors are therefore treating credible diplomatic progress as bearish for oil prices but positive for global risk sentiment.

US Domestic Political Pressure

The negotiations are also unfolding in a sensitive domestic political environment in the United States.

Reports indicate President Trump faces pressure over energy prices and broader economic effects tied to the conflict.

However, most publicly documented reactions relate to decision‑making inside the administration rather than detailed congressional debate. Available reporting focuses mainly on White House strategy and presidential messaging.

The Bottom Line

Diplomacy between the United States and Iran appears closer to a draft framework than at any point since the conflict began, but a fully confirmed peace agreement has not yet been finalized. Pakistan remains the central intermediary carrying proposals between both sides, while unresolved disputes over nuclear policy, ceasefire guarantees, and maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz continue to complicate negotiations.

For now, the situation remains fluid: progress toward a deal is visible, but the hardest issues are still unresolved.

However, other reporting indicates negotiations remain unresolved. As of mid‑May, Pakistani officials were still passing revised Iranian proposals to Washington, warning that both sides were struggling to narrow their differences.

Earlier discussions focused on a short memorandum or framework deal rather than a full settlement. Such a document would halt fighting first and then launch negotiations on more complex issues like nuclear restrictions and sanctions relief.

Pakistan’s Role as the Main Mediator

Pakistan has emerged as the key diplomatic channel between Tehran and Washington.

• Islamabad has hosted the only direct peace talks so far and continues to relay proposals and responses between the two sides.
• Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly confirmed that Iran delivered its response to a U.S. proposal through Pakistani mediators.
• Pakistani officials and military leadership have also worked to resolve “sticky issues” such as ceasefire terms and nuclear negotiations.

This shuttle diplomacy has effectively made Pakistan the main conduit for indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran during the conflict.

The US Position and Role of the White House

The U.S. administration has taken a dual approach: diplomatic engagement paired with continued military pressure.

President Donald Trump has pushed publicly for a rapid agreement but has also warned of renewed military action if Iran’s responses do not meet U.S. demands.

Reports indicate the White House has been reviewing Iranian proposals while consulting with national security advisers about possible next steps, including whether negotiations should continue or pressure should increase.

This strategy reflects Washington’s attempt to end hostilities while securing commitments related to Iran’s nuclear program and regional security.

Major Sticking Points in the Negotiations

Despite diplomatic momentum, several issues remain unresolved.

1. Ceasefire Terms

A fragile ceasefire has existed since early April 2026, when the United States and Iran agreed to a temporary truce mediated by Pakistan. Violations by both sides have been reported, and the truce has required extensions while negotiations continue.

Most proposals follow a two‑stage structure: first an immediate ceasefire, then negotiations on a broader political settlement.

2. Nuclear Program and Sanctions

Iran’s nuclear program remains the most contentious issue.

Tehran has demanded concessions including the release of frozen Iranian funds and relief from sanctions, while Washington insists on stronger commitments regarding uranium enrichment and nuclear oversight.

Because these positions are difficult to reconcile, many proposals postpone final nuclear arrangements until after hostilities stop.

3. The Strait of Hormuz

Control and security of the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most important oil shipping routes—are central to the negotiations.

Several diplomatic frameworks link the ceasefire to reopening maritime traffic through the strait and stabilizing shipping lanes disrupted during the conflict.

Iran has also indicated that reopening the strait could depend on broader guarantees, including a permanent ceasefire rather than a temporary truce.

Market and Economic Reactions

Because roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply normally moves through the Strait of Hormuz, each diplomatic signal has immediate economic consequences.

• Oil prices have fallen at times when new peace proposals suggested possible de‑escalation.
• Financial markets have also reacted to uncertainty, with Wall Street pulling back when talks appeared stalled.

Investors are therefore treating credible diplomatic progress as bearish for oil prices but positive for global risk sentiment.

US Domestic Political Pressure

The negotiations are also unfolding in a sensitive domestic political environment in the United States.

Reports indicate President Trump faces pressure over energy prices and broader economic effects tied to the conflict.

However, most publicly documented reactions relate to decision‑making inside the administration rather than detailed congressional debate. Available reporting focuses mainly on White House strategy and presidential messaging.

The Bottom Line

Diplomacy between the United States and Iran appears closer to a draft framework than at any point since the conflict began, but a fully confirmed peace agreement has not yet been finalized. Pakistan remains the central intermediary carrying proposals between both sides, while unresolved disputes over nuclear policy, ceasefire guarantees, and maritime security in the Strait of Hormuz continue to complicate negotiations.

For now, the situation remains fluid: progress toward a deal is visible, but the hardest issues are still unresolved.