Where will the second round of US-Iran talks be held? Islamabad or Geneva?

The recent high-stakes engagement between the United States and Iran in Islamabad may have concluded without a formal agreement, but it has not marked the end of negotitations between the two adversaries.

Despite the absence of a breakthrough, both sides have signalled a willingness to continue engagement under the shadow of a fragile ceasefire that is now being tested by new developments, including a US naval blockade.

Islamabad, Geneva or another venue?

Islamabad, which hosted the marathon session over the weekend, remains a strong candidate for the follow-up meeting.

According to multiple sources who spoke to Reuters, negotiating teams from both countries could return to the Pakistani capital within days, indicating that logistical and diplomatic groundwork is already in place.

At the same time, Geneva is also being actively evaluated as a potential site. Along with Vienna and Istanbul, it had been proposed earlier in the process before Islamabad was eventually selected for the initial round.

More from Explainers

Islamabad was always the wrong choice for Iran talks

Iran says some understanding reached with US after 24-hour talks, trust deficit remains

Now, both Geneva and Islamabad are again under discussion as viable options for hosting the next engagement.

Officials familiar with internal deliberations in Washington described these preparations as preliminary but necessary, given the fluid nature of the situation. “We need to be prepared to stand something up quickly should things head in that direction,” a source told CNN.

The broader diplomatic effort has not been limited to bilateral engagement. A network of intermediaries has been actively involved in facilitating dialogue between the two sides.

Pakistan played host to the initial talks, while countries such as Turkey, Egypt and Oman have contributed to backchannel negotiations over recent weeks. A regional source indicated that Turkey is continuing its efforts to narrow the differences that remain between Washington and Tehran.

The Islamabad meeting itself, which lasted approximately 21 hours, represented the culmination of weeks of coordination involving these intermediaries and senior US officials.

Officials have stated that multiple rounds would likely be required to reach any substantive outcome.

When will the second round of talks be held?

Despite the lack of a breakthrough, officials in Washington maintain that diplomacy is still moving forward. “There is continued engagement between the US and Iran and forward motion on trying to get an agreement,” a US official told CNN, reflecting a cautious sense of optimism within the administration.

At the same time, uncertainty persists over whether a second round will materialise in the immediate term.

While discussions are ongoing regarding potential dates and locations, officials acknowledge that the process remains contingent on developments in the coming days, including signals from Tehran about its willingness to engage further.

US President Donald Trump has indicated that he remains open to resuming face-to-face negotiations if he believes Iran is prepared to meet US demands.

According to individuals familiar with the matter, the administration is considering arrangements for another in-person meeting before the current ceasefire expires on April 21, though no final decision has been made.

Trump suggested that Iran may be eager to reach an agreement, stating that the country had made contact with his administration and “they’d like to make a deal very badly.” He did not specify who initiated the communication or which officials were involved.

Vice President JD Vance has also emphasised that the process remains ongoing, while making clear that Washington expects further concessions from Tehran. “They moved in our direction,” he said, “but they didn’t move far enough.”

He added, “There really is, I think, a grand deal to be had here, but it’s up to the Iranians, I think, to take the next step.”

What is the core dispute, according to the US?

At the heart of the negotiations lies the long-standing US disagreement over Iran’s nuclear activities. The issue, which predates the current conflict, continues to be the primary obstacle to any comprehensive agreement.

According to a White House official, the United States has set out several non-negotiable conditions.

These include a complete cessation of uranium enrichment by Iran, the dismantling of key nuclear facilities — many of which were reportedly damaged during a US bombing campaign in June — and the retrieval of more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium believed to be stored underground.

These demands are consistent with positions that Washington has maintained in previous rounds of negotiations, including earlier efforts led by senior figures such as Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, which ultimately failed to produce an agreement due to Iran’s refusal to abandon enrichment and surrender its stockpile of near weapons-grade material.

During the Islamabad talks, the US proposed that Iran agree to a 20-year suspension of uranium enrichment. Tehran, however, responded with a counterproposal calling for a five-year moratorium — a timeline that US officials deemed unacceptable.

This disagreement over the duration of any enrichment pause has emerged as a key sticking point, with both sides unwilling to compromise on what they consider essential elements of their respective positions.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi characterised the talks as constructive up to a point, but ultimately undermined by what he described as shifting demands from the US side.

“In intensive talks at highest level in 47 years, Iran engaged with US in good faith to end war,” he said. “But when just inches away from ‘Islamabad MoU’, we encountered maximalism, shifting goalposts, and blockade.”

Why has Trump decided to impose a blockade?

While the truce has temporarily halted hostilities, its durability remains in question, particularly in light of recent developments.

One of the most significant of these is the US decision to impose a naval blockade targeting Iranian ports and the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global shipping route that has become a focal point of the conflict.

The blockade, which took effect on Monday, reflects a strategic calculation by Washington that economic pressure could compel Iran to adopt a more conciliatory stance in negotiations.

By restricting Iran’s ability to export oil, the US aims to cut off a key source of revenue and weaken Tehran’s bargaining position.

At the same time, the move introduces new risks. The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively under Iranian control, and US naval forces operating in the region face potential threats from Iranian speedboats, drones and naval mines.

The situation raises questions about how far the US is prepared to go in enforcing the blockade and how Iran might respond.

From Iran’s perspective, its continued hold over the strait provides a measure of leverage. The ability to disrupt global oil flows gives Tehran a strategic advantage, even as it faces economic pressure from the blockade.

What has China said about this?

China has been particularly vocal in urging all parties to prioritise peace. Foreign Minister Wang Yi pointed out the fragility of the current ceasefire during a conversation with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar.

“The current ceasefire is highly fragile, with the region at a critical turning point. The immediate priority is to prevent a resumption of hostilities and sustain the hard-won truce,” he said.

Wang also commended Pakistan for its role in facilitating the Islamabad talks and helping broker the ceasefire, describing its approach as “fair and balanced.”

He pointed to a five-point initiative jointly proposed by China and Pakistan last month as a potential framework for achieving stability in the Gulf and wider West Asia.

Russia, too, has engaged in discussions related to the conflict. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov arrived in Beijing for talks that include the situation in Iran as well as other global issues such as the war in Ukraine.

According to Russia’s Foreign Ministry, the discussions are expected to involve “a thorough exchange of views” on regional and international matters, including developments in West Asia.

With inputs from agencies