分类： world

As high-stakes negotiations between the United States and Iran approach in Islamabad, the future of a fragile regional ceasefire and global energy security hangs in the balance, with deep divisions and ongoing military violence casting a long shadow over the scheduled discussions. Set to kick off on Saturday in Pakistan’s capital, the talks could stretch up to 15 days, with negotiators set to address a slate of explosive, high-stakes issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear enrichment program to unimpeded commercial navigation through the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz. However, Iran has already tied its full participation in the dialogue to an immediate end to Israeli military strikes in Lebanon, a demand that comes as Israel continues its offensive against Hezbollah in the region.

The US delegation will be led by Vice President JD Vance, but Iran has yet to release details of its negotiating team, with top Iranian officials arguing that ongoing Israeli attacks have already stripped the planned talks of meaningful purpose. “The holding of talks to end the war is dependent on the US adhering to its ceasefire commitments on all fronts, especially in Lebanon,” Esmaeil Baqaei, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, confirmed Thursday.

Tensions rose further Thursday after US President Donald Trump cast public doubt on Iranian compliance with existing shipping agreements through the Strait of Hormuz, writing on social media that “Iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable some would say, of allowing oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. That is not the agreement we have!” The vocal criticism came amid shifting shipping activity in the region: early Friday, ship-tracking data showed a Botswana-flagged liquefied natural gas tanker reversed course and returned to the Gulf after attempting to exit via a route approved by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, highlighting growing uncertainty over the strait’s operation.

In a Thursday speech marking 40 days since the death of former supreme leader Ali Khamenei—who was killed in a joint US-Israeli strike at the outbreak of the current conflict—Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared that the Iranian people had secured a “decisive victory” in the war, and announced that the country would move into a new phase of managing the strategic waterway. De facto disruption to traffic through the strait, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supplies pass, has already sent global energy prices soaring: by Friday, the international benchmark Brent crude spot price stood at around $96 per barrel, a 35% jump since the start of the conflict. The price surge has driven up costs for gasoline, food and other essential goods across the globe, far beyond the borders of the Middle East.

As Pakistan tightened security across Islamabad in preparation for the talks, global economic leaders have warned that the ongoing conflict already poses a major threat to worldwide growth, regardless of whether the fragile ceasefire holds. Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, told reporters Thursday that “had it not been for this shock, we would have been upgrading global growth.” Speaking ahead of next week’s joint IMF-World Bank spring meetings, Georgieva added: “But now, even our most hopeful scenario involves a growth downgrade.”

Israeli military activity has continued to escalate in Lebanon, shattering the already uneasy truce between Washington and Tehran. On Wednesday, Israel carried out its deadliest round of strikes on Lebanon since February 28, killing more than 300 people. Early Friday, the Israeli military announced it had targeted an additional 10 rocket launchers across southern Lebanon. Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, who is widely rumored to be a leading candidate to join Iran’s negotiating team in talks with Vance, warned Thursday that continued Israeli attacks on Hezbollah would bring “explicit costs and strong responses.”

Further complicating regional tensions, Kuwait announced Friday it had suffered a drone attack overnight Thursday, which it blamed on Iran. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard quickly issued a denial, rejecting any involvement in the strike.

Parallel to the US-Iran talks in Pakistan, direct Israeli-Lebanese negotiations are scheduled to launch next week in Washington. But many analysts warn the prospects for progress are slim. Abed Abou Shhadeh, a Jaffa-based Israeli political analyst and activist, described the US-Iran ceasefire talks as “extremely problematic” for Israel. Citing recent Israeli media polls, Al Jazeera reported that 79 percent of Israeli citizens support continuing military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, meaning the Israeli government has little political incentive to pursue diplomatic progress.

In recent days, a quiet but consequential transaction has unfolded off Iran’s coast: an Iranian marine pilot boarded a Greek-flagged tanker carrying Kuwaiti crude bound for Japan, after the captain obtained clearance to enter Iranian territorial waters via VHF radio. The day prior, the vessel’s charterer transferred a six-figure sum in U.S. dollars to an Omani bank tied to the Iranian government. This encounter, experts say, could become a daily routine if ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations in Pakistan result in a peace deal, formally cementing Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints.

Middle East Eye consulted six maritime security experts, ship owners, international law scholars and energy traders to unpack how Iran could turn its de facto control of the waterway into a formal revenue stream, even amid long-standing U.S. hostility. The first step, experts agree, is rebranding: what Iran frames as a charge for passage cannot be called a toll if it hopes to win international and U.S. acceptance.

Donald Rothwell, a leading law of the sea scholar at Australian National University, explained to Middle East Eye that the better framing is a “fee for service” rather than a transit toll. After military strikes from the U.S. and Israel, Iran effectively restricted traffic through the strait. Under international law, while states bordering international straits are barred from blocking innocent transit, they can suspend passage for security reasons during active conflict, Rothwell noted. Critics point out Iran’s current tactics – including harassing and seizing commercial vessels and designating Omani territorial waters as hazardous – violate existing international norms, but experts say the Trump administration, which has previously floated controversial territorial expansion ideas, may overlook legal technicalities to reach a deal.

Notably, neither the U.S. nor Iran has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), leaving more room for negotiation. U.S. President Donald Trump has already sent mixed signals on the plan: he has suggested sharing transit proceeds with Iran could be positive, but later demanded Iran halt all fee collection immediately. Despite the legal ambiguities, Rothwell argues Iran’s position holds some merit amid the current ceasefire uncertainty.

“Right now Iran is in a twilight zone, pending a finalised peace deal with the U.S. and Israel,” Rothwell said. “Iran can argue that it needs to guarantee safe passage for transiting vessels amid the risk of resumed military operations, and that escorted transit is a service it provides. That creates a legal opening.”

While formal tolls are only legally permitted for man-made waterways like the Suez and Panama Canals, precedent exists for international strait states to charge service fees. Australia charges mandatory pilotage fees for vessels transiting the narrow, dangerous Torres Strait shared with Papua New Guinea, and Turkey collects tonnage fees for Bosphorus and Dardanelles transits under the 1936 Montreux Convention to fund safety, rescue and inspection services. Jason Chuah, a maritime law professor at City St Georges University of London, told Middle East Eye that Iran’s situation is not identical to these examples, but these precedents give Tehran a legal foothold to build on.

Currently, Iran’s control of transit remains ad-hoc and unstructured. Before the recent conflict, roughly 130 vessels transited the strait daily. Between April 8 and 9, that number dropped to just 14, with nearly two-thirds of those belonging to Iran-sanctioned entities or the shadow fleet, according to Marine Traffic analytics. Vessels that do gain passage must submit extensive documentation – including bills of lading, crew manifests, insurance details and previous and next port information – so Iran can screen for U.S. or Israeli links, explained Martin Kelly, head of advisory at risk consulting firm EOS Risk Group. Even with government-to-government approval, there is no guarantee of passage, Kelly added.

So far, vessels from Iran’s close partners including Russia, Pakistan, India and China have successfully transited. Among Western-linked shipping, Greek firms have been the most active: multiple tankers owned by Dynacom, the shipping group of Greek magnate George Prokopiou, have passed through the strait, with payments made to Iran in Chinese yuan, an anonymous ship owner confirmed to Middle East Eye. While yuan has been used for ad-hoc payments, the head of Iran’s oil, gas and petrochemical exporters union recently told the Financial Times that Tehran prefers payment in cryptocurrency.

Joshua Hutchinson, chief commercial officer at British maritime security firm Ambrey, told Middle East Eye that Iran has not yet established a clear, scalable framework for the system, due to internal divisions. “The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is disconnected from the politicians right now. So the communication by Tehran has been problematic,” he said. While prospective ship owners – many drawn by sky-high shipping rates – have multiple channels to reach Iran, including embassies and local brokers, the core issue remains payment structure. “Iran has not communicated a clear, scalable payment scheme,” Hutchinson said. “I think that will happen eventually; it’s just progressing slowly because of the split between the civilian government and the military.”

Iranian officials have publicly floated a $2 million toll per vessel, or $1 per barrel of oil carried, but maritime experts say a tonnage-based fee would be the most practical implementation. While Iran has proven it can drastically reduce traffic through the strait, meaningful monetization requires buy-in from major global shipping players. Currently, record-high shipping rates have left many ship owners weighing risk against reward, said Maria Bertzeletou, senior analyst at shipping services firm Signal Group.

“At the end of the day, it depends if owners are willing to pay the fees Iran wants and take the risk. Maybe they will prefer to send their vessels on other routes,” Bertzeletou said. She noted that even after the Houthis halted Red Sea attacks in May 2025, total tonnage through the waterway remains 50% lower than pre-attack levels, meaning traffic may not rebound quickly even if a deal is reached. Bertzeletou predicted a split in shipping attitudes: “We could see a bifurcation of the strait with different attitudes between Asian and western shipowners. I have a feeling that some western ship owners could sell some second-hand tankers to Asian owners who have an appetite to cross the strait, while Western owners focus on other routes.”

Toby Copson, portfolio manager at Davenport Energy, said the timeline for large-scale energy traffic and formal fee collection remains uncertain. “It will be cloak and daggers for some time,” he said, noting that many Chinese vessels currently transiting the strait are not paying fees. However, with rates for Very Large Crude Carriers – the workhorses that carry Gulf crude to Asia – hitting historic highs, and oil and LNG prices also spiking, the proposed fees would be easy for shippers to absorb, Copson argued. “This fee Iran wants could be absorbed so quickly given the spike in oil prices. In the current pricing climate, the shippers would be stupid not to pay it.”

The biggest barrier remains U.S. sanctions, Chuah noted: any payment to the IRGC, which controls Iran’s border and maritime security operations, would currently violate U.S. sanctions. Iran has demanded sanctions relief as a core condition of any peace deal, part of a 10-point proposal it released this week that Trump has called a “workable” basis for negotiations. While most Western shipping relies on U.S. dollars, Copson said Iran could easily collect fees in yuan or cryptocurrency. For yuan payments, he explained, shippers simply exchange for offshore renminbi and transfer to Iranian accounts, which Iran then converts to gold or dollars through Chinese intermediaries – a process that is not overly complex, though cryptocurrency would offer more opacity.

Still, the Trump administration is likely to resist any fee framework that excludes the dollar, particularly as the conflict has fueled broader global discussions of de-dollarization. If a deal is reached, the international shipping industry will have little choice but to comply, Chuah said, but the U.S. will face intense pushback from key regional allies that oppose Iran cementing control over the strait. The United Arab Emirates, a close U.S. and Israeli partner that has taken a hard line against Iran during the conflict, has already pushed back: Anwar Gargash, diplomatic adviser to the Emirati president, said this week the UAE will reassess its alliances post-war, and Sultan al-Jaber, head of Abu Dhabi’s state oil company, said Iran continues to use coercion to restrict passage, even amid the ceasefire. “Big oil majors and Gulf states absorb a fee, but it will set a very bad precedent,” Chuah said.

But other experts argue regional opponents will have little leverage if the U.S. agrees to a deal. “If Trump lifts sanctions on Iran, it will be game on,” Hutchinson said.

ISLAMABAD, April 11 – A senior Iranian delegation led by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf touched down in Islamabad on Saturday ahead of highly anticipated negotiations with United States representatives, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed in an official statement this week.

The visiting delegation, assembled for the high-stakes diplomatic discussions, also counts Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi among its core members. On arrival at the Pakistani capital, the Iranian delegation was formally welcomed by a senior contingent of Pakistani leadership. The reception party included Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar, National Assembly Speaker Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, Chief of Army Staff Field Marshall Syed Asim Munir, who also serves as Chief of Defense Forces, and Interior Minister Syed Mohsin Raza Naqvi.

In remarks following the welcome, Ishaq Dar shared Pakistan’s expectation that all negotiating parties will approach the discussions in a spirit of constructive engagement. He reaffirmed Pakistan’s longstanding commitment to continuing its role as a neutral facilitator, working to support all parties in reaching a sustainable, long-term resolution to the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran.

The talks mark a rare diplomatic opening between the two longtime adversaries, with Pakistan serving as the host and intermediary for the pivotal discussions that are being watched closely by global powers across the world.

ISLAMABAD – In a significant step toward de-escalating long-running tensions in the Middle East, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif confirmed Friday that senior negotiation delegations from the United States and Iran will convene for direct talks in the Pakistani capital on Saturday. The announced meeting comes on the heels of a recently agreed temporary ceasefire in the region, marking the start of what Sharif described as a far more challenging phase of diplomacy to lock in lasting, permanent peace.

In a public address announcing the planned talks, Sharif emphasized that dialogue remains the only viable path forward to resolve deep-rooted disputes fueling instability across the Middle East. With the temporary pause in hostilities already in place, the next critical step is to translate that short-term truce into a durable, long-standing peace through constructive negotiations, he added.

The Pakistani prime minister also made clear that his country’s leadership is committed to doing everything in its power to create an environment conducive to productive dialogue, and to ensuring the negotiations reach a successful outcome. As a key regional actor with long-standing diplomatic ties to both Washington and Tehran, Pakistan has positioned itself as a neutral mediator to bring the two sides to the negotiating table amid heightened regional tensions that have threatened to spill beyond the Middle East in recent months.

The planned talks mark a rare high-level engagement between the United States and Iran, two nations with decades of strained diplomatic relations that have been a core source of instability across the Middle East. The international community has widely welcomed the decision to hold negotiations, with many regional and global powers expressing hope that the talks will open the door to broader confidence-building measures and a lasting reduction in tensions.

Trapped between competing regional and global powers, Lebanon’s newly elected government is waging a quiet diplomatic battle to claim full sovereignty over its own future, pushing to position itself as an equal, independent negotiating party ahead of next week’s Washington talks with Israeli officials. The ongoing conflict that has shattered the country has put Beirut in an unenviable position: squeezed between Israeli military aggression, Iran’s regional power projection, and inconsistent diplomatic attention from Washington, leaving the small state scrambling to rewrite the rules of negotiation before its fate is decided by outside actors.

The conflict traces back to a US-Israeli strike that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which triggered retaliatory cross-border rocket fire from the Iran-aligned militant group Hezbollah. Israel responded with a full-scale bombardment of Lebanon, acting on long-held plans to push Hezbollah back from the shared border that the movement has controlled for decades. When Washington and Tehran announced a two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan earlier this week, both Iran and Islamabad said the truce would include Lebanon. But Israel immediately rejected that inclusion, launching a devastating 10-minute air assault on Beirut and other Lebanese areas that killed more than 300 people, the majority civilians including dozens of children. Under mounting international pressure and threats of further Iranian retaliation, Israel eventually agreed to de-escalate its attacks and enter direct talks with the Lebanese government in Washington next week to discuss a permanent end to hostilities and the future of Hezbollah.

For Lebanon’s leadership, which took office in early 2025 on a mandate to restore state authority after years of fragmentation and a previous devastating Israeli war sparked by the Gaza conflict, the upcoming talks represent far more than a chance to stop the bombing. Senior Lebanese officials have made clear that their core demand is non-negotiable: all future negotiations and decisions about Lebanon’s future must be channeled exclusively through official state institutions, led by President Joseph Aoun’s office. The government is intent on abandoning the old military-dominated negotiation frameworks that have governed Israeli-Lebanese border talks for years, and separating any Lebanese agreements from separate deals being struck between Iran and the United States. This position is as much about survival as it is about sovereignty: after decades of foreign interference and economic collapse that has left the state fragile, Lebanese leaders view formal control over negotiations as the only way to rebuild public trust in state institutions and avoid being reduced to a bargaining chip in a larger regional conflict.

Not all stakeholders have aligned with this framework, however. Hezbollah, the powerful Iran-backed armed movement that holds significant political and military sway in Lebanon, has rejected the current timing of the talks, insisting that any negotiations can only begin after a full ceasefire, an Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory, and the safe return of displaced civilians. The new approach also creates friction with both Israel and Iran, whose competing priorities directly undermine Beirut’s goals. Israel has made clear it intends to decouple the Lebanese file from wider talks with Iran, seeking to maintain military pressure on Hezbollah and keep Lebanon as a bargaining chip to prevent Iran from claiming a diplomatic victory by protecting its regional ally. For its part, Iran has resisted any separation of the two fronts, viewing the US initial attempt to exclude Lebanon from the Iran ceasefire as a outright betrayal. Iranian officials have repeatedly stated they will not move forward with any truce that leaves Lebanon exposed to continued Israeli attacks, a stance echoed by senior diplomatic sources in Egypt, which is leading Arab mediation efforts. Any public abandonment of Hezbollah would also carry severe political costs for Tehran both domestically and among its regional allied networks.

International powers have been split in their approach to Lebanon’s demands. Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt have all sought to reassure Beirut and urge patience as diplomacy moves forward, with Egypt actively pushing for Lebanon’s full inclusion in any regional ceasefire framework. Both France and the United Kingdom have also publicly called for any US-Iran truce to extend to Lebanon. But Lebanese officials report that Beirut also faces quiet external pressure: some global and regional actors do not want to see Lebanon positioned as a success for Iranian diplomacy, after earlier Arab mediation efforts failed to stop the war. For President Aoun, this creates a no-win dilemma: even as his weak government relies on Iranian pressure to secure a ceasefire, he cannot afford to be seen as a mere proxy for Tehran, which would undermine his mandate to restore sovereign state authority.

The scale of the crisis facing Lebanon makes this diplomatic push all the more urgent. The latest conflict has displaced more than one million people – roughly one-fifth of the country’s entire population – and the International Monetary Fund warned earlier this year that Lebanon’s fragile post-collapse economic recovery will remain unstable without deep structural reforms. The current ad-hoc negotiation framework, which has been anchored in a US-chaired military truce committee and UN-backed monitoring since a 2024 ceasefire, was expanded to include civilian envoys in late 2025, but Aoun’s administration is pushing for a fully political channel centered on the presidency and cabinet, rather than the legacy military-focused machinery.

Prime Minister Nawaf Salam is expected to travel to Washington and New York in the coming days to frame any diplomatic progress as a victory for the Lebanese state, rather than a concession to regional power brokers. But even if he succeeds in securing a ceasefire through state-led channels, core sticking points – including the future of Hezbollah’s arsenal and the status of southern Lebanon – will remain tied to the broader US-Iran regional standoff. In the end, Lebanon’s government is trying to secure three competing goals: an immediate ceasefire to end civilian suffering, full state control over all negotiations, and a political outcome that does not hand Iran a symbolic diplomatic victory – all while holding almost none of the decisive power needed to shape the final outcome.