Pakistan mediation is moving toward possible U.S.-Iran talks after President Donald Trump said Washington has been meeting Tehran “directly and indirectly” and expects a deal, while warning it may not happen. The same remarks also kept escalation on the table, with Trump separately floating the idea of taking Iran’s Kharg Island oil terminal. Markets and security planners are now pricing diplomacy and military pressure as parallel tracks, not alternatives.
Pakistan mediation and Trump’s deal message
Trump told reporters on March 30, 2026, that U.S. and Iranian contacts have been happening “directly and indirectly,” and he described Iran’s current leaders as “very reasonable,” according to Reuters. He added: “I think we’ll make a deal with them, I’m pretty sure, but it’s possible we won’t.”
Pakistan, which has been positioning itself as an intermediary, said it is preparing to host talks aimed at ending the month-long war. Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said Islamabad would be “honoured to host and facilitate meaningful talks between the two sides in coming days,” Reuters reported, but the same report said it was not clear whether Washington and Tehran had agreed to attend.
A day earlier, Dar hosted foreign ministers from Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia in Islamabad as part of Pakistan mediation’s push to build a wider diplomatic channel around the war, Reuters reported. Those discussions focused heavily on reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, including proposals that were discussed with the United States and Iran, according to sources cited by Reuters.
Kharg Island talk raises the stakes for energy and Gulf security
Alongside the mediation push, Trump’s comments about Kharg Island put strategic energy infrastructure directly into the public bargaining space. The Associated Press reported that Trump openly mused about seizing Kharg Island, Iran’s major oil export terminal in the Persian Gulf, and told the Financial Times: “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options.”
Kharg Island matters because it is the hub for most Iranian crude exports and is built to load very large tankers in deeper water off Iran’s coast. Reuters has reported that Kharg handles about 90% of Iran’s oil export shipments, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration describes Kharg as Iran’s largest export terminal and says terminals on Kharg, Lavan and Sirri handle almost all of Iran’s crude exports.
Publicly floating a seizure does not mean an operation is imminent, but the signal alone changes the risk map. Any threat to Kharg combines with the broader shipping disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, which Reuters noted typically carries about 20% of global oil and gas shipments. The AP reported Brent crude was trading around $115 a barrel on March 30, roughly 60% higher than when the war began in late February.
Why simultaneous diplomacy and escalation matters
For diplomats, the immediate consequence is that Pakistan mediation has to work in a narrow lane: getting both sides in the same room while each side advertises leverage. If Tehran believes talks are cover for expanded military steps, that can slow or derail attendance, even if both sides continue to pass messages indirectly.
For markets, the consequence is more concrete. When a leader talks about taking a key export terminal, traders have to price the possibility of a sudden removal of barrels from the market, even if the move never happens. Reuters has reported that Iran continued shipping significant volumes during the war and that even limited damage at Kharg could tighten supply and push prices higher.
For Gulf states and shipping firms, the consequence is that infrastructure and transit routes become potential targets. Iran’s effective stranglehold on Hormuz is already forcing rerouting and higher insurance costs, while any expansion of strikes or seizures would widen the set of assets that need protection.
What remains uncertain about Pakistan mediation
The biggest near-term unknown is procedural: whether U.S. and Iranian representatives will actually show up in Islamabad, and whether the talks would be direct or indirect. The AP also reported that Iran has insisted it has not been in talks with Washington, even as Trump claimed negotiations were underway.
There is also uncertainty about how far the United States would go beyond air and naval operations. Reuters has reported that analysts see a Kharg seizure as achievable but risky, because forces on the island could be exposed to missile, drone and mine threats and could end up extending the conflict rather than ending it.
What happens next
Pakistan mediation now turns on confirmation, timing and agenda. If both sides agree to attend, Islamabad can try to move from message-passing to a defined set of steps, such as a ceasefire sequence tied to shipping access through Hormuz. If one side declines, Pakistan mediation may continue through narrower maritime confidence-building measures, but the wider war would remain driven by military decisions.
Either way, Trump’s “deal” language and his Kharg Island rhetoric leave the same bottom line for households and businesses: energy price swings will track not only battlefield developments, but also the credibility of talks and the willingness of major actors to keep key infrastructure off the table.