# Iran and US Submit Replies to Qatar-Pakistan Push for Talks
*By IO Digest Desk*
Event date: 2026-07-26.
The United States and Iran have submitted responses to a proposal from Pakistan and Qatar aimed at restarting talks between the two countries, according to The Jerusalem Post's report. The development came after the second consecutive night without U.S. strikes in two weeks, a pause that suggested both sides were at least testing whether diplomacy could take hold again.
The report says a source told Al Arabiya and Al Hadath that Iran had not withdrawn from negotiations but had suspended them, while still being willing to continue dialogue under the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding. It also said Tehran told Pakistani officials it rejected the idea of a new corridor in the Strait of Hormuz. That point is important because the strait sits at the center of the Gulf's energy route and any new corridor proposal would have raised immediate strategic questions.
The diplomatic movement followed nearly two weeks of sustained U.S. military operations. According to the source quoted in the report, Donald Trump had approved strike plans each afternoon for 13 days, with attacks usually carried out within hours. But on Friday he declined to authorize another strike plan and instead ordered the military not to launch new attacks. That hold order set up the quieter stretch described in the article.
Trump then told reporters the smarter strategy would be to reach an agreement with Iran. He said the U.S. was talking to Tehran, that the Iranians were becoming more serious, and that Washington remained locked and loaded if escalation became necessary. That combination of pressure and dialogue is the central pattern in the piece: the administration was still threatening force, but it was also leaving a path open for talks.
The article also says Saudi Arabian outlets reported the exchange of responses after Pakistan and Qatar put forward a proposal to resume negotiations. That detail matters because it shows the diplomatic channel was not purely bilateral. Instead, regional mediators were acting as intermediaries while Washington and Tehran stayed formally separate and the military situation remained volatile.
The source is careful to note that the pause in strikes did not resolve the conflict. It only created space for the possibility of talks. That is why the report is best read as a snapshot of a negotiation corridor under pressure: strikes had slowed, mediators were active, and both sides were signaling willingness to keep talking without surrendering their red lines.
What the evidence does establish is that the fight over Iran's nuclear program, military targets and regional posture was no longer being conducted by force alone. Pakistan and Qatar were trying to revive a diplomatic lane; Iran said it had suspended rather than abandoned talks; and the White House chose not to escalate for the moment. In a crisis where each day can bring a fresh strike or a fresh opening, that kind of response is itself a meaningful event.
The source does not establish a final breakthrough. It does show that both sides were still talking through intermediaries, and that Washington's willingness to pause strikes created room for the next round of bargaining. That is enough to report a pause in escalation, not a peace deal.
