US-Israel-Iran Conflict: Latest on Peace Talks and the Strait of Hormuz Crisis

Iran has declined to participate in peace talks held in Islamabad aimed at securing a ceasefire in the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, according to reports from Spanish news outlet EL PAÍS. The refusal comes amid intensified diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions that have seen reciprocal military actions across the region, including strikes attributed to the U.S. And Israel on Iranian targets and Iranian responses targeting commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.

The talks in Islamabad, which brought together intermediaries and regional stakeholders, were intended to explore pathways toward a temporary halt in hostilities. However, Iranian officials stated that conditions for meaningful negotiation were not met, particularly citing the continued presence of U.S. Naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and ongoing sanctions pressure as prerequisites for any engagement. Tehran maintains that any discussion of a ceasefire must be preceded by the lifting of the maritime blockade it says is strangling its economy and limiting its ability to export oil.

Iran’s position was echoed in subsequent reporting by 20Minutos, which noted that Tehran had formally communicated to U.S. Intermediaries that it would not enter negotiations until the Strait of Hormuz is fully reopened to Iranian vessels. The strait, a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments, has been a focal point of tension, with both sides accusing each other of disrupting maritime traffic. The U.S. And its allies have framed their naval presence as necessary to ensure freedom of navigation, while Iran characterizes it as an act of economic warfare.

Despite Iran’s refusal to join the Islamabad talks, other channels of communication appear to remain open. La Vanguardia reported that Iranian officials have indicated indirect discussions with U.S. Representatives, possibly facilitated through third parties, are continuing, though progress toward a tangible agreement remains slow. According to these accounts, Tehran acknowledges that dialogue is occurring but views a comprehensive deal as distant, citing deep mistrust and conflicting objectives regarding Iran’s nuclear program, regional influence, and missile capabilities.

The broader context includes a series of reciprocal actions that have heightened fears of a wider regional confrontation. Over the past weeks, the U.S. And Israel have conducted strikes on what they describe as Iranian-backed militia positions in Syria and Iraq, as well as facilities linked to Iran’s drone and missile programs. In response, Iran has launched barrages of ballistic missiles toward Israeli territory and increased its support for allied groups across the Middle East, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and various factions in Yemen and Iraq.

EL PAÍS also published a reflective piece questioning the semantics of diplomacy amid ongoing violence, titled “Call it peace even if it continues to be war,” suggesting that current negotiations may serve more to manage conflict than to resolve it. The article underscores skepticism about whether any agreement reached under duress can be considered genuine peace, particularly when military operations continue alongside diplomatic overtures.

As of mid-April 2026, no formal ceasefire has been established, and neither the U.S. Nor Iran has signaled a willingness to de-escalate unilaterally. International actors, including the United Nations and the European Union, have urged restraint and called for renewed diplomatic engagement, but have so far been unable to convene a direct meeting between the principal parties. The situation remains fluid, with military posturing and diplomatic messaging continuing in parallel, leaving the prospect of near-term de-escalation uncertain.