ISLAMABAD, April 27 (Xinhua) -- With U.S. President Donald Trump's declaration that Washington will no longer send delegations for talks with Iran, the highly anticipated second round of U.S.-Iran Islamabad talks failed to materialize, as both sides are not on the same page over several key issues like the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear program and war compensation.

Analysts here said that although the second round of face-to-face talks has not been achieved, diplomatic efforts are underway to build a common ground for both sides to agree to end the hostilities, even though the process will be long and tough.

WILL THE CEASEFIRE HOLD?

Open military exchanges from Feb. 28 between the United States and Iran have slowed since April 8, and Trump said earlier that there is "no time pressure" on the U.S.-Iran ceasefire he extended last week. However, the confrontation has shifted into economic and maritime pressure rather than a political settlement.

Iran has warned it will respond if what it calls "blockade, banditry and piracy" continue, while Washington appears to believe sustained economic pressure can force concessions without renewed strikes.

Former Pakistani ambassador Masood Khan said the United States is now more likely to rely on economic leverage than immediate military escalation.

"They may continue to rely on this lever instead of attacks again," he said, referring to vessel interceptions and restrictions on Iranian-linked shipping. Prolonged maritime pressure could push Tehran toward compromise, while renewed direct attacks would carry greater military and political costs.

Strategic affairs analyst and retired Air Commodore Khalid Chishti said both Washington and Tehran are under growing pressure to avoid renewed military escalation.

"This creates pressure on both sides to find an off-ramp," he said, noting that Washington must manage commitments across Israel, Ukraine and Asia, while Iran is dealing with wartime exhaustion and economic strain.

At the same time, Washington also faces rising costs from prolonged confrontation, including military deployment expenses and instability in global oil markets.

That makes preserving the ceasefire strategically useful for both sides, even if a breakthrough remains distant, according to him.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT IN HORMUZ?

The Strait of Hormuz remains the core issue shaping both diplomacy and the ceasefire.

After the April 8 ceasefire, the United States maintained maritime restrictions and sanctions enforcement, limiting movement to and from Iranian ports, while Tehran tightened control over Hormuz and linked any return to formal talks to lifting the blockade.

Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi's second visit to Islamabad specifically included discussions on Iran's enforcement of a new legal system for the strait, as Iran has discussed with Oman a possible governance protocol for the strait.

Masood Khan said the arrangement reflects geography and sovereignty realities. But whether Washington would accept such an arrangement remains uncertain.

He added that any U.S. demand for a formal share in that framework would likely be rejected. "I think neither Iran, nor Oman, nor other Gulf states will be able to accept this."

Analysts said an Iran-Oman mechanism may be regionally workable, but U.S. acceptance would depend on guarantees of uninterrupted international shipping and limits on Tehran's strategic leverage.

The uncertainty over the strategic maritime channel is already affecting global markets. Brent crude rose above 107 U.S. dollars per barrel on Monday, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate climbed above 96 dollars, reflecting fears of prolonged disruption in Hormuz.

Pakistan's former ambassador Naghmana Hashmi said the conflict had transformed the strategic meaning of the waterway. "Before the current escalation, the Strait of Hormuz had functioned as a global maritime common. The conflict has introduced a layer of systemic uncertainty into one of the world's most consequential chokepoints."

Hashmi said the broader lesson is that military pressure alone cannot stabilize the region. "Force projection without political architecture produces volatility, not resolution," she said.

WILL IRAN TALK DIRECTLY OR THROUGH PAKISTAN?

Trump said Sunday that if Iran wanted talks, "they can come to us, or they can call us," adding that Washington would no longer send officials to make "18-hour flights" for meetings.

The focus has now shifted from direct negotiations to whether Tehran will contact Washington directly or continue relying on intermediaries such as Pakistan and Oman.

Araghchi's return to Islamabad from Oman before departing for Russia, along with reports that Tehran used Pakistan to convey updated conditions for ending the conflict, indicates that mediation through Islamabad remains active.

Masood Khan said Trump's remarks should not be seen as a downgrade of Pakistan's importance. "The Pakistan channel will remain," as Iran had handed its counter-proposals to Pakistan, which then transmitted them to Washington.

Pakistan's former foreign secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said Tehran's position also remains unchanged: negotiations cannot proceed under pressure. "If one party feels that they are under pressure, why would they negotiate?" he said, referring to U.S. restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz.

Analysts said Iran is therefore unlikely to directly call Washington for now, preferring Pakistan and Oman to remain the principal communication channels.

Pakistan's defense analyst and retired Brigadier Tughral Yamin told Xinhua that what we are seeing today in the Middle East shows that diplomacy does not work through sudden breakthroughs, but through continuous movement, quiet engagement, and repeated interaction across different channels.

He said that history consistently shows that rigid standoffs do not end in dramatic moments, but through gradual recalibration -- where what once seemed impossible becomes negotiable through patience, persistence, and sustained dialogue.

So diplomacy is not a single act. It is a long process of endurance, adjustment, and quiet negotiation that unfolds over time, even when no immediate results are visible, Yamin said.