March 27, 2026

SHARE |

Smoke and Mirrors? The Major Players Involved in The Iran Negotiation Discussions

AP Photo/Khaled Elfiqi, File

Over the course of this week, U.S. President Donald Trump has touted diplomacy after almost a month of conflict with Iran. Trump has repeatedly made broad claims of progress, at times declaring victory despite the Strait of Hormuz remaining closed to most international traffic. At the same time, Pakistani officials have said that Islamabad had been relaying messages between Washington and Tehran, including a 15-point U.S. proposal, which Steve Witkoff confirmed in a press briefing at the White House on Thursday. The proposal reportedly calls on Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and to agree to end any nuclear enrichment. While Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar wrote on X yesterday that the U.S. demands were being “deliberated on by Iran,” Pakistani sources told Yalda Hakim at Sky News that “talk of negotiations is little more than a smokescreen,” with many believing that “Washington is buying time for U.S. Marines to arrive.”

According to an Iranian state-media agency, Tasnim, Tehran said it had formally responded to the U.S. proposals but attached major conditions, including an end to attacks and assassinations, guarantees that hostilities would not resume, compensation for damages, and a broader end to regional fighting involving aligned groups. At the same time, Iranian officials have said that they do not trust these negotiations, also believing that it is a stalling tactic to possibly calm the markets and await the arrival of U.S. troops in the region. On Thursday night, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon was considering sending up to 10,000 additional ground forces to the region. Aside from the distrust between parties, possible negotiations are made harder by the inability of the United States to make any guarantees on behalf of Israel, which will continue to attack Iran or its proxies.

Assassinations of top officials have not only left hardliners in place but have also sidelined political leadership and centered the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf are some of the influential political figures capable of negotiating with the United States. According to reports, the U.S. had asked Israel to refrain from targeting these figures after Pakistan had warned that their death would leave few, if any, viable interlocutors for negotiations.

Pakistan has become a top intermediary between the U.S. and Iran, facilitating indirect communication, relaying proposals, and positioning Islamabad as a potential venue for peace talks. Pakistan’s military leadership, particularly army chief Syed Asim Munir, have taken a leading role in this shuttle diplomacy, with Munir leveraging his friendly relationship with Trump to position Pakistan as a geopolitically relevant partner. Pakistan also maintains cordial relations with neighboring Iran. Simultaneously, Pakistan’s has close military ties with Gulf states — including Saudi Arabia, with which Pakistan has a mutual defense agreement with. This defense pact could one of several motivating factors in Pakistan’s involvement in mediating this conflict as the potential for Saudi Arabia to get pulled into the war militarily would in turn pull Pakistan in as well. Pakistan is also a nuclear power, which may also drive its involvement. As the only Muslim-majority state to have nuclear weapons, Pakistan has a clear interest in negotiating Iran’s nuclear program, especially as the two countries share a border. On Thursday night, however, there was a reported aerial bombing near the Embassy of Pakistan in Tehran. While no one was injured, some believe the bombs may have come from Israel or the U.S., possibly in order to disrupt negotiations. At the time of writing, there has been no official attribution.

Türkiye, which in recent years has held a stake or mediation role in various regional conflicts, has urged restraint to its Arab Gulf allies, specifically warning against joining the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Türkiye has been involved in numerous conflicts in recent years, from Somalia to Libya to Iraq, seeking to re-establish some of its regional cachet as progeny of the Ottoman empire. This more engaged foreign policy agenda was significantly bolstered in December 2024, when Turkish-backed forces ousted Bashir al-Assad in Syria.

Nonetheless, the Iran War presents a different issue set for Ankara, and they have consequently not been the natural mediation interlocutor for Washington and Tehran — especially as Türkiye has also fielded reported drone attacks on its NATO bases from Iran. Türkiye has taken a notably restrained posture in the conflict, seeking to de-escalate and urge restraint in countries hit by Iranian retaliatory strikes, including Azerbaijan and its Arab Gulf State allies. Ankara seeks to thread the balance between maintaining its partnership with the U.S. and avoiding an emboldened Israel that effectively will enjoy hegemonic power if Iran implodes. Egypt has likewise prioritized showing solidarity with the Arab Gulf countries but have refrained from more active involvement. In recent visits to Qatar and the UAE, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has condemned Iranian attacks. Egypt’s role so far has been limited, reflecting Cairo’s attempt at avoiding the Islamic regime’s wrath and its limited role as interlocutor or mediator.

The fact that Pakistan, Egypt, and Türkiye — albeit less so Türkiye — are involved in these mediation efforts is not a coincidence. Iran is moving further toward a militarized system of governance where authority is increasingly concentrated the IRGC. In Egypt and Pakistan especially, the military plays a decisive role in national decision-making. These are systems that understand and can interface directly with Iran’s security establishment.

As more U.S. military assets pour into the Middle East, the more pressure Trump believes he is placing on the Iranians to make a deal. But this may be a fundamental misreading of the Iranian mindset as the fifth week of this conflict approaches. Washington seems to believe that an overwhelming display of military power will force the Iranians to the negotiating table. But as Special Envoy Steve Witkoff noted recently, the U.S. can't expect to gain in peace what it was not able to take in war, a sentiment the Iranians have made clear. Yesterday afternoon, President Trump posted to Truth Social that “As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time. Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well…” However, if Trump is truly considering sending the additional 10,000 troops, the 10-day pause could also be interpreted as another stalling tactic until those troops arrive.

Tehran, for its part, is misreading the United States, likely believing that the Trump administration could never be so foolish as to enter a quagmire similar to what occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both sides fail to understand the motives, objectives, and decision-making processes of the other, instead, engaging in mirror imaging in reaching their conclusions. Washington believes that, given the degradation of Iran’s conventional military capabilities, the IRGC leadership must be looking for an offramp. But a hardline IRGC regime in Iran could see the situation very differently, and is likely preparing the ground for a potential U.S. ground operation.