• Claims Iran has accepted ‘almost everything’ in talks
• Nuclear issue remains key sticking point; US presses for complete dismantlement
• Pakistan-led diplomacy, CDF’s Tehran visit gain global attention
• FO says Pakistan maintaining ‘open channels’ with both sides
• Massive security deployment planned in Islamabad, Rawalpindi

WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he may travel to Islamabad if a final agreement with Iran is signed there, while claiming that Tehran has accepted “almost everything” currently under negotiation.

Speaking to reporters on the White House lawn before departing for Nevada and Arizona, Trump expressed optimism about Pakistan-led diplomatic efforts to end hostilities and secure a settlement before the current ceasefire expires.

“If a deal is signed in Islamabad, I may go,” he said. “They want me.”

He also indicated that the US-Iran ceasefire, set to expire next week, could be extended, although he suggested such a move might not be necessary if a deal is reached in time.

Trump reiterated an unverified claim that Iran had agreed to surrender enriched uranium allegedly relocated and concealed after last year’s US-Israeli air strikes. The Iranian nuclear progra­mme remains the central sticking point in the negotiations, and Washing­ton continues to press for its complete dismantlement.

The US president has consistently advocated for a comprehensive deal under which Tehran would abandon its nuclear capabilities in return for sanctions relief and de-escalation.

His remarks came amid intensified diplomatic activity involving regional and international stakeholders, as efforts gathered pace to secure both an immediate ceasefire and a longer-term political settlement.

Trump, who has repeatedly praised Pakistan and its leaders as “extraordinary, kind and very competent”, has once again shown his ability to swing the global conversation with a single statement.

The 47th day of the US-Iran war began on Thursday with a glimmer of optimism. Major American media outlets, from the New York Times to online platforms, portrayed Chief of Defence Forces Field Marshal Asim Munir’s visit to Tehran as a possible peace mission — one that could help end the devastating conflict between Wash­ington and Tehran.

A diplomatic observer told Dawn in Washington that “all sides are hoping to finalise at least an initial agreement before the ceasefire expires”.

Pakistan’s diplomatic push aims to turn the temporary truce into a lasting peace, with reports indicating a second round of negotiations could be hosted in Islamabad soon.

Earlier, Pakistan — which is mediating bet­ween Iran and the United States — said it expected to host a second round of peace negotiations bet­ween the two sides.

Foreign Office spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said on Thursday that a second round of talks between the United States and Iran was expected to take place in Islamabad but declined to provide a date.

Speaking to reporters at a weekly news briefing, Andrabi said that Pakistan was maintaining “open channels of communication with the concerned parties”.

Meanwhile, authorities have stepped up security preparations in Islamabad and Rawalpindi ahead of a possible second round of talks, with officials reviewing and retaining the plan used during the first round.

Around 6,000 Islamabad police personnel, supported by Frontier Constabulary, Rangers and the army, will be deployed across the capital, particularly in and around the Red Zone.

In Rawalpindi, over 5,000 personnel will be on duty, with strict monitoring of entry and exit points, heightened surveillance and temporary restrictions on movement to ensure the security of visiting delegations.

‘Maximally postured’

While diplomatic momentum appeared to build, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a cautionary note, warning that Washington was prepared to resume military operations if negotiations failed.

“We urge the new Iranian regime to choose wisely,” Hegseth said, adding that the US military was “maximally postured” to restart combat operations if Tehran refused to agree to a deal.

Amid these mixed signals, Trump announced a separate diplomatic breakthrough, stating that Israel and Lebanon had agreed to a 10-day ceasefire following talks in Washington.

According to Trump, the truce would begin at 5pm Eastern Time, following discussions involving Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netan­yahu and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The Lebanon ceasefire is seen as a key precondition for Iran’s continued engagement in talks with the United States, with Tehran insisting that any agreement must include a halt to hostilities across all fronts.

Pakistan’s role in facilitating dialogue has been widely acknowledged.

“Pakistanis have been incredible mediators,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said after the army chief’s arrival in Iran. “The president feels it’s important to continue to streamline this communication through the Pakistanis.”

International media have also highlighted Islamabad’s growing diplomatic role. The New York Times noted that “Pakistani diplomacy has risen to the forefront of efforts to broker peace between the United States and Iran, as the top leaders of Pakistan tried to preserve a shaky cease-fire between the combatants and to again offer their country as the venue for potential talks.”

It noted that Field Marshal Asim Munir was “the first regional player to visit Iran since the United States and Israel began attacking it”.

Field Marshal Munir also met Iranian Parliam­ent Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf in Tehran. Pakistan helped negotiate a two-week ceasefire last week, scoring a major diplomatic victory. That ceasefire is to expire on April 21.

Munawer Azeem in Islamabad and Mohammad Asghar in Rawalpindi also contributed to this report

Published in Dawn, April 17th, 2026

WASHINGTON: Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb has said that Pakistan is closely monitoring the evolving situation in the Middle East, warning that a prolonged conflict would have serious financial consequences for the country and the wider global economy.

In an interview with CNBC, the minister said Pakistan’s leadership had made “very earnest effort” over the weekend to support diplomatic engagement between the United States and Iran.

“So, our leadership is still at it. And very earnest effort was made over the weekend, and that was recognised both by the US leadership and the Iranian leadership,” he said, adding: “At this point in time, the discussions continue.”

Asked about the timing of the next round of talks, Aurangzeb emphasised the importance of maintaining calm rather than focusing on dates. “I think the first thing, the important thing is that the ceasefire continues,” he said. “It’s difficult to double-down into the exact dates but the engagement is on.”

In reply to a question about whether the lack of a concrete outcome so far was disappointing, the minister described the very fact that dialogue had resumed as a breakthrough.

“It’s about 50 years later that there were face-to-face discussions between Iran and the United States. And I think that in itself is a big achievement,” he said.

“When you sit down, and there’s a dialogue going on. But there are various points of discussions and as those discussions continue and I think that in itself bodes well for the future.”

Expressing hope that the conflict could be resolved through diplomacy, Aurangzeb underlined the economic risks for countries like Pakistan.

“We have to be hopeful because dialogue and diplomacy is the way forward,” he said. “Even as a country which is not directly involved in the war, but we are in a warlike situation, and I can tell you as a finance minister the first impact that we see in our country is the financial impact and if the war goes on, it would be a quite big issue for the entire world, and certainly for us as well.”

Energy security

On the specific question of energy security and the Strait of Hormuz, the minister said Pakistan’s oil supplies were sufficient for the immediate future but warned of vulnerabilities.

“Our [oil] reserves are good enough to take us towards the end of this month and into the next month as well,” he said. “But you can appreciate that in a country which is built on commercial reserves, and we do not have strategic reserves, both the availability and the pricing become real issues.”

Pakistan relies heavily on imported fuel, and any disruption in regional shipping lanes or spike in global oil prices would likely add to existing fiscal pressures.

The finance minister’s remarks come amid heightened tensions in the Gulf region, with global markets closely watching diplomatic efforts aimed at preventing further escalation.

Published in Dawn, April 16th, 2026

• Warns no military solution to US-Iran conflict
• UN envoy to visit Pakistan as diplomatic efforts intensify

WASHINGTON: UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has said there is “no military solution” to the current conflict in the Middle East, while welcoming recent US-Iran talks hosted by Pakistan as a “positive and meaningful step” towards renewed dialogue.

The UN secretary general is also sending his special envoy, Jean Arnault, to Islamabad to consult Pakistan’s leaders on ways to help end the Iran war, which is increasingly seen as a global threat.

In a statement issued by his spokesperson in New York on Monday, the UN chief noted that although no agreement was reached in the Islamabad discussions, the very fact that the two sides engaged underscored the seriousness of their commitment.

“While no agreement was reached at the talks hosted by Pakistan between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran in Islamabad, the discussions themselves underscored the seriousness of their engagement and constituted a positive and meaningful step towards renewed dialogue,” the statement said.

Guterres cautioned that, given “deeply rooted differences”, an agreement could not be reached overnight, and urged continued engagement in a constructive spirit to achieve a durable settlement.

He also stressed that the ceasefire “must absolutely be preserved”, calling for an immediate end to all violations.

Paying tribute to diplomatic efforts, he thanked mediators including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkiye, and urged the international community to support their initiatives.

The secretary general further underlined the importance of respecting freedom of navigation, including in the Strait of Hormuz, in line with international law. He warned that disruptions in maritime traffic are already affecting global supply chains, with around 20,000 seafarers reportedly stranded at sea under worsening conditions.

The statement said disruptions were also impacting fertiliser supply chains, worsening global food insecurity and contributing to rising fuel and transport costs.

UN envoy Jean Arnault recently met Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi in Tehran, engaged with Iranian Red Crescent representatives, and visited sites damaged in recent strikes, including a university and a destroyed apartment building.

UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the envoy reiterated the secretary general’s commitment to pursuing “every possible effort” for a peaceful resolution and will continue regional consultations.

Jorge Moreira da Silva, executive director of the United Nations Office for Project Services, is also coordinating related maritime safety efforts with international partners.

‘Talks reflect trust deficit’

Analysts in Washington say the Islamabad negotiations reflect not a breakdown of diplomacy, but a continuing trust deficit between Washington and Tehran.

Vali Nasr, professor of Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University, said the talks failed because Iran sought guarantees that any deal would be implemented, while the US insisted on immediate, verifiable steps.

Iran fears Washington could withdraw after it makes irreversible concessions, while the US seeks compliance before easing pressure.

Pakistan’s mediation role expands

Despite the absence of an agreement, the Islamabad talks, reportedly lasting 21 hours, covered Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief, frozen assets, maritime security and broader regional arrangements, supported by technical exchanges and written proposals.

Analysts say the level of detail reflects structured diplomacy rather than exploratory contact.

With the UN envoy expected to visit Islamabad this week, Pakistan’s role appears increasingly embedded in an ongoing diplomatic framework. Whether the next round takes place in Islamabad or elsewhere remains unclear, but the process is still seen as open-ended and in motion.

Published in Dawn, April 14th, 2026

• US president refuses to apologise, calls Leo ‘weak’ and ‘terrible’
• Pontiff insists it’s his ‘moral duty’ to speak out against war

WASHINGTON: It is not often that the world hears a sitting American president and a pope speaking directly to each other in tones that resemble confrontation rather than counsel. Fewer still are the moments when the argument turns so openly on war, morality and the language of God.

Yet that is precisely what unfolded over the weekend and into Monday, as President Donald Trump refused to apologise for his sharp criticism of Pope Leo XIV, deepening an extraordinary public dispute that now stretches across Washington, Rome and a papal aircraft somewhere over North Africa.

“There is nothing to apologise for. He is wrong,” Trump told reporters, brushing aside the controversy as if it were just another political disagreement. The pope, he said, had spoken “very weakly” on crime as well as foreign policy and was “very much against what I am doing with regard to Iran”.

In a long Truth Social post, Trump wrote that “Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy”.

The language was blunt even by Trumpian standards. But what gives this exchange its unusual weight is not only the personalities involved, but the offices they inhabit: one the most powerful elected leader in the world, the other the spiritual head of 1.3 billion Catholics and, for the first time in history, an American-born pope.

Pope Leo XIV did not respond in kind. Instead, somewhere between Rome and Algiers, he chose a register long associated with the Vatican at its most deliberate: restraint shaped into moral clarity.

“I have no intention of debating with him,” he told reporters aboard the papal plane. “I am not a politician.”

But what followed was less a rebuttal than a declaration of duty.

“I have a moral duty to speak out against war,” he said. “I have no fear, neither of the Trump administration nor of speaking loudly about the message of the Gospel.”

It was a formulation that moved the dispute beyond diplomacy and into a more ancient register, a contest between political necessity and moral witness.

At the centre of the disagreement lies the war in Iran, where a US-Israeli strike in February escalated into a broader regional conflict. The pope has repeatedly called for restraint, warning of civilian suffering and condemning what he has described as an “unacceptable” escalation of violence.

Trump, by contrast, has framed the conflict in stark strategic terms: nuclear threat, deterrence and force. “You cannot have a nuclear Iran,” the US president said, as if the sentence itself carried its own finality.

The pope’s response, however, was not framed as an argument but as conscience. “Blessed are the peacemakers,” he said, invoking scripture rather than strategy. “The Church has a duty to speak clearly for peace and reconciliation.”

Europe steps in, uneasily

If the exchange between Washington and the Vatican carried a theological undertone, Europe’s response was unmistakably political.

In Rome, Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni broke with one of her key transatlantic partners to call Trump’s remarks “unacceptable”. “The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church,” she said, “and it is right and normal for him to call for peace and condemn war.”

It was a rare public distancing from a leader who has otherwise sought to balance ideological affinity with strategic alignment with the Trump administration.

Italian bishops went further, reminding the world that the pope is “not a political counterpart but the successor of Peter”, a formulation that quietly rejected the premise of the confrontation itself.

For the Vatican, disagreement with presidents is not unfamiliar terrain. But the immediacy and tone of this exchange feel different.

Pope Leo is not only the first American pope; he is also unusually direct in framing global conflict in explicitly ethical terms, often refusing the diplomatic language of ambiguity.

His current African tour, taking him through Algeria, Cameroon, Angola and Equatorial Guinea, is meant as a journey of reconciliation and interfaith dialogue. In Algiers, he spoke of “forgiveness” at a memorial to victims of Algeria’s war of independence, urging nations to “face the future with a reconciled spirit”.

It was a message of historical memory and moral repair delivered just hours after the American president accused him of undermining US security policy.

At another moment in history, such a disagreement might have remained confined to private correspondence or diplomatic channels. But in the age of social media, it has unfolded in full public view, sharpened by Trump’s use of Truth Social and his increasingly personalised framing of political and moral authority.

His recent posts, including an AI-generated image that critics said depicted him in a Christ-like pose, added yet another layer of controversy, prompting unease even among some supporters.

The Vatican, by contrast, has remained formally composed. The pope has declined to personalise the dispute, returning instead to the language of mission and moral obligation.

Yet the contrast is difficult to miss: one man speaking in the grammar of power, the other in the grammar of conscience, both, in their own way, claiming moral authority. What makes this confrontation unusual is not that disagreement exists, but that neither side appears willing to soften its position.

Trump has doubled down. The pope has refused to engage on his terms. European leaders have entered the conversation. And beneath it all lies a question neither Washington nor Rome can easily settle: who defines morality in a time of war?

For now, the distance between the White House and the Vatican is measured less in geography than in language and in the increasingly incompatible ways both men understand their responsibility to history.

As Pope Leo continues his journey across Africa calling for forgiveness and reconciliation, and as Trump defends his hard line on Iran from Washington, their exchange has already become something larger than a dispute.

It is, in its own way, a mirror of the present moment, when political power and moral authority are no longer speaking the same language, even when they are speaking about the same war.

Published in Dawn, April 14th, 2026