The recently announced US-Iran two-week cease-fire, before the US-Iran talks expected in Islamabad have yet started, has caused serious disagreements between the parties, casting doubt on the cease-fire and possible future agreements. And all this is because immediately after the Iran-US ceasefire agreement was reached, Israel began to strike Lebanon hard, declaring that Lebanon is not part of the US-Iran agreements. Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf announced that the US had already violated three key points of Iran’s 10-point proposal before the start of negotiations, including violating the ceasefire in Lebanon, using a drone to penetrate Iranian airspace and denying Iran the right to enrich uranium.

“As the US president has clearly stated, Iran’s 10-point proposal is a “workable basis for negotiations” and the fundamental framework of those negotiations. However, until today, three points of this proposal have been violated,” wrote Ghalibaf on the X social network.

According to him, among the violations are the non-fulfillment of the first point of the proposal, which refers to the cease-fire in Lebanon, the intrusion of an unmanned aerial vehicle into the airspace of Iran in the city of Lar, and depriving Iran of the right to enrich uranium. Ghalibaf added that bilateral ceasefire or negotiations are not advisable under such conditions. Obviously, there is some confusion about Iran’s proposals, with several versions circulating, and the parties interpreting them accordingly. Iran insists that the cease-fire also extends to Lebanon, i.e. Iran’s allies, sanctions against Iran must be lifted, Tehran must maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, and continue enriching uranium. However, the US insists that the ceasefire does not apply to Lebanon.

US President Donald Trump stated that there is no agreement that Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium. The Strait of Hormuz should also be opened and made safe for traffic. US Vice President also confirmed that the USA did not agree to a ceasefire in Lebanon. “We have never made such a promise … we have said that the ceasefire will focus on Iran and America’s allies, both Israel and the Arab states of the Persian Gulf,” US Vice President JD Vance said.

Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iran published the Pakistani statement on its official X social network page, which states that Lebanon has been officially included in the list of countries where a ceasefire should be implemented immediately, emphasizing: “The terms of the cease-fire between Iran and the United States are clear and simple. America must choose between a ceasefire or continuing the war through Israel. A combination of these two factors is impossible. The world is witnessing the carnage in Lebanon. The ball is now in the court of the United States, and global public opinion is watching whether the country will fulfill its obligations.”

Kaya Kalas, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Policy announced that the cease-fire reached between the United States of America and Iran should also be extended to Lebanon, adding that the Iranian-backed Lebanese group “Hezbollah” should be disarmed. “Israel’s actions put the US-Iran ceasefire under serious pressure. The agreement reached with Iran should also be extended to Lebanon. As a result of Israeli strikes, hundreds of people were killed last night, which makes it difficult to argue that such harsh actions can be considered self-defense,” Kalas wrote on the X social network.

Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and US Vice President JD Vance were supposed to go to Pakistan’s capital Islamabad today for negotiations, but there is still no clear information whether Iran-US talks will take place in Pakistan or not. According to a number of media reports in the Middle East, Pakistan is actively preparing for its mediation efforts, preparing to host the American and Iranian delegations for global negotiations on the Pakistani platform.

And what is remarkable is that all this is happening in a situation where, according to the authoritative Financial Times, the Trump administration has been secretly pushing for weeks for a ceasefire to be established, seeking to ease the economic burden caused by Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz, Washington hoped to use Pakistan as a mediator. Moreover, according to the newspaper, Pakistan Army Chief of Staff Asim Munir was in contact with Iranian officials, Special Envoy Steve Wittkoff, Vice President J.D. With Vance and Trump himself, even after the president threatened to destroy Iranian civilization on Tuesday.

According to five sources familiar with the diplomatic communications, Trump has requested a cease-fire since March 21, the same day he first threatened to strike Iran’s power plants. However, at the same time, in the public field, the US president used a different rhetoric, threatening constant bombings and the prospect of destruction.

“They are the ones asking for consent, not me. They are the ones asking for an agreement,” Trump said, adding that the Iranians are asking for an agreement.

However, the upcoming US-Iran talks in Pakistan do not seem to promise great results, they will take place in a complex and multi-layered security environment, where multi-layered disagreements limit the possibility of diplomatic success. Israel’s continuation of operations in Lebanon under the formal conditions of a cease-fire creates a situation where Iran appears at the negotiation table not with the logic of concessions, but of resistance and containment, further hardening the position that we can already see from the statements coming from Tehran. A classic situation of “managed tension” was formed, where the parties were interested in negotiating, but not enough to reach real compromises.

Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s mediating role, though important, is more technical than strategic. Islamabad can provide a platform for communication, but it cannot influence the main contradictions, which are not due to bilateral, but regional and even global competition.

Geneticists assess the probability of success as limited, at most partial results. It may be about temporary reduction of tension, maintenance of communication channels or agreements of a humanitarian nature, but few foresee a strategic breakthrough.

The speech of Iranian analysts and diplomats shows that Iran’s toughening stance will inevitably affect the South Caucasus as well. In the run-up to the Iran-US-Israel war, Iran hardened its stance towards Azerbaijan, sending multi-level warnings to Azerbaijan about the consequences of giving Azerbaijani territory to Iran’s enemies.

In recent years, Tehran has already given clear signals that any geopolitical restructuring in the region, which would limit its connection with Armenia or strengthen the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem, would be considered as a red line.

In the conditions of the current deepening of tensions, this position seems to be becoming more pronounced. However, it is still not clear how this will affect the actual Iranian policy in the South Caucasus. Aggravation of several trends can be expected. It is not excluded that Iran will try to more actively strengthen its economic and infrastructural presence in Armenia as a counterweight to other regional projects, the deepening of security cooperation is also not excluded, and thirdly, Tehran may react more harshly to any initiative related to the US presence in Armenia and TRIPP, considering it to undermine its strategic interests.

These developments are turning the South Caucasus into a zone of greater geopolitical competition, where Iran, amid its global pressures, can act more decisively and at times riskier. This, in turn, complicates Armenia’s foreign political problems.

In conclusion, it should be noted that possible US-Iran negotiations will take place in Pakistan in unfavorable military and political conditions, and their success depends on the dynamics of regional escalations. And Iran’s toughening position will also be reflected in the South Caucasus, increasing the level of tension and competition in the region.

—