Pakistan has launched a new diplomatic effort to revive U.S.-Iran talks, sending Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi to Tehran on a previously unannounced visit as negotiations remain stalled and Iranian officials publicly question Washington’s intentions.

Dawn reported Sunday that Naqvi landed in the Iranian capital for a two-day visit that diplomatic sources in Islamabad said was tied to Pakistan’s continuing effort to prevent the U.S.-Iran process from collapsing. The trip followed a period of fading momentum after earlier Pakistan-backed diplomacy and after President Donald Trump rejected Tehran’s latest response to American proposals, according to the report.

The visit gives Islamabad another opportunity to position itself as a mediator between Washington and Tehran, a role that carries direct U.S. relevance because any diplomatic opening could affect the future of American security posture in the Gulf, maritime traffic around the Strait of Hormuz and the risk of another military escalation involving U.S. forces or U.S. partners.

Regional reporting from Arab News, citing Iranian state media, said Naqvi met Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni in Tehran on Saturday. The reported agenda included bilateral relations, border trade, transit, the exchange of goods and joint measures between the neighboring states. Those issues are formally bilateral, but the timing of the visit placed them inside a broader diplomatic push over the U.S.-Iran crisis.

Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency described the trip as unannounced and said the two interior ministers discussed ways to expand cooperation along the shared border. Anadolu Agency also reported that the Pakistani minister was in Tehran for meetings with Iranian officials, while Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said the visit had been scheduled but did not initially provide a detailed public agenda.

The diplomatic stakes are high because the U.S.-Iran channel remains burdened by mistrust. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in remarks reported by Reuters that Iran has “no trust” in the United States and would negotiate only if Washington demonstrated seriousness. AP separately reported that Araghchi described lack of trust as the central obstacle to ending the conflict and criticized what Tehran views as mixed signals from Washington.

Pakistan’s latest move therefore appears aimed less at announcing a breakthrough than at keeping a pathway open. In diplomatic terms, the trip functions as pressure relief: it allows Islamabad to gather Tehran’s current position, signal that negotiations have not been abandoned and potentially relay messages among parties that are reluctant to engage directly or publicly.

For Washington, Pakistan’s involvement is useful but complicated. Pakistan maintains relations with Iran, has its own border-security concerns and has sought to improve ties with the United States. That combination can make Islamabad a practical courier, but it does not guarantee either side will accept a compromise. Iranian officials have continued to demand signals that Washington is prepared for a balanced deal, while U.S. officials have insisted that Iran’s nuclear and security posture remain central concerns.

The Pakistan channel also sits alongside wider international maneuvering. Dawn noted that Naqvi’s visit came after Trump’s trip to China and meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping produced no visible breakthrough on Iran, despite speculation that Beijing might use its influence with Tehran. That matters for U.S. policy because Washington is not only managing Iran; it is also watching whether China, Pakistan, Gulf states or other powers can shape the diplomatic space around Tehran.

Energy security remains one of the clearest U.S.-relevant dimensions. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical route for global oil and gas shipments, and tensions around Iran quickly feed into shipping risk, insurance costs, fuel prices and market volatility. Even when the immediate fighting is limited, uncertainty over maritime access can ripple through U.S. consumers, airlines, manufacturers and financial markets.

Naqvi’s portfolio as interior minister also points to Pakistan’s domestic and regional interests. Pakistan shares a long and sensitive border with Iran, and both countries have an interest in managing trade, pilgrim movement, smuggling, militancy and security incidents. A wider U.S.-Iran confrontation would put additional pressure on that border and could complicate Pakistan’s internal security environment. By engaging Tehran, Islamabad is also protecting its own neighborhood from a conflict that could spread through proxy networks, refugee flows or cross-border disruptions.

The mediation effort has limits. None of the public reporting indicated that Naqvi carried a finalized U.S. proposal, that Iran had accepted renewed talks or that a new meeting date had been set. The available accounts instead describe an effort to facilitate talks and promote regional peace, with senior officials discussing both bilateral cooperation and broader regional stability.

That caution is important because U.S.-Iran diplomacy has repeatedly moved between public confrontation and private signaling. When leaders on either side reject proposals, intermediaries can preserve communications, but they cannot resolve the core disputes alone. The central questions remain whether Washington and Tehran can agree on nuclear limits, sanctions relief, security assurances and regional conduct, and whether either side sees political benefit in compromise.

Pakistan’s push also comes at a moment when Islamabad is trying to expand its diplomatic relevance. Acting as a mediator in one of Washington’s most sensitive foreign-policy crises offers Pakistan potential leverage with the United States and the Gulf, while giving Tehran a channel that is not fully aligned with Western capitals. But that role requires careful balance: Pakistan cannot appear to be merely carrying U.S. pressure to Iran, nor can it alienate Washington by seeming to validate Tehran’s positions.

The immediate test is whether the Tehran visit produces follow-on contact. If Pakistan can help restart even indirect exchanges, it may reduce the risk of miscalculation and create room for a more formal diplomatic process. If the effort stalls, the U.S. and Iran will remain dependent on fragmented messages through intermediaries, with greater risk that military, maritime or political incidents will outrun diplomacy.

For now, the fresh bid underscores that regional actors still see value in keeping U.S.-Iran diplomacy alive, even as trust between Washington and Tehran remains low. Pakistan’s visit does not resolve the dispute, but it marks another attempt to prevent the diplomatic track from closing entirely at a moment when the consequences of failure would extend well beyond Iran and the United States.