Post-agreement complications between the United States and Iran rival the difficulty of the negotiations themselves
A diplomat revealed that disagreements sometimes centered on highly precise linguistic details, citing a 45-minute debate in late May over the use of the phrases “and others” or “including.”
According to informed sources, Pakistani mediators spent weeks reconciling late-night phone calls and competing draft texts before Qatari efforts helped secure a preliminary agreement between the United States and Iran this week. However, transforming it into a permanent agreement is expected to be even more difficult.
The two sides now have a 60-day deadline to negotiate a final settlement covering complex issues, including Iran’s nuclear program. Four Pakistani sources familiar with the talks stated that reaching the temporary agreement alone faced countless obstacles that shifted rapidly from day to day, ranging from proposed fees in the Strait of Hormuz to the war in Lebanon.
In the early hours of Monday, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced a 14-point memorandum aimed at ending the war and lifting the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies had passed.
Speaking before Parliament later on Monday, Sharif said, “There were many moments during the negotiations when it seemed that the entire process would come to a complete halt.”
Five Pakistani sources, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions, said the announcement came after the negotiations had nearly collapsed several times, including on the final night. Two of those sources, along with a diplomat familiar with the talks, stated that Qatari intervention was required to secure the framework agreement.
The diplomat explained that disputes sometimes revolved around extremely subtle wording issues, referring to a 45-minute discussion in late May regarding whether to use the phrase “and others” or “including” in the text, without specifying the provision under debate.
Sources and analysts said that reaching a final settlement on issues such as sanctions relief, management of the Strait of Hormuz, and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will be even more complicated, particularly given the deep lack of trust between Washington and Tehran.
According to Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute in Washington, “Washington and Tehran appear to have different interpretations of the same text.” He added, “Iran will seek to turn ambiguity into a bargaining tool, while the United States will attempt to maintain pressure until nuclear concessions are secured. Therefore, mediation will remain essential, but it will be difficult.”
Four Pakistani sources said that shortly after the first round of talks in early April, the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz emerged as one of the most significant points of contention. President Donald Trump’s call in late May for Iran and Pakistan to join the Abraham Accords and normalize relations with Israel created an additional obstacle to the negotiations.
One source stated that the arrival of a Qatari delegation in Tehran simultaneously with a Pakistani team in early June marked a decisive turning point, as Doha was able to provide financial guarantees to the Iranian leadership.
The diplomat explained that Qatar had initially been reluctant to participate formally in the process, but its position changed in mid-May after talks stalled for approximately ten days and the likelihood of military escalation increased.
He added that Qatar agreed to become more directly involved only on the condition that the ceasefire remain in place and that it would not itself become a target of attack. Since then, the Qatari team has reportedly made five secret trips to Tehran, often via Turkey, to bridge gaps in draft agreements prepared by the Pakistani side.
According to the source, on May 19, after leaving Tehran in what was viewed as a promising start, the Qatari delegation flew to Washington, where it met senior U.S. officials, revised the text, and continued coordinating with Iranian counterparts from within the White House.
One Pakistani participant in the negotiations said the final night demonstrated how fragile the process remained until its very last moments.
According to the source, at around 11 p.m. Pakistan time on Sunday, while officials were gathered at the Prime Minister’s residence and inside the operations room, the talks were once again on the verge of collapse after Israel launched an attack against Lebanon.
“The situation was extremely tense,” he said, noting that Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir, personally relayed messages between the two sides throughout the night. A few hours later, an agreement was reached.
Four Pakistani sources stated that Donald Trump’s shifting public statements repeatedly complicated mediation efforts, while Iran’s slow responses to urgent proposals hindered progress.
The sources added that these delays sometimes resulted from an unusual fragmentation within Iran’s decision-making process following the weakening of its leadership structure due to U.S. attacks.
An international source familiar with the negotiations said the Iranians demonstrated extraordinary caution regarding information security, adding, “Messages pass through many hands and then return several days later.”
The Pakistani source involved in the talks said matters improved after the arrival in Islamabad of a representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, allowing Munir and his team “to establish more direct channels of communication.”
The international source noted that Pakistan had begun to grow frustrated by the contrasting communication styles: “With the Americans, it was difficult to know exactly where they stood because their position could change. With the Iranians, it was common not to receive a clear response for several consecutive days.”
The diplomat concluded that despite the signing of the temporary agreement, the process remains fragile, particularly because Israeli strikes in Lebanon and responses by Hezbollah could undermine the agreement.
An international source summarized the atmosphere by saying: “I do not think I have ever participated in a process marked by such an extraordinary level of mistrust.”
