US-Iran Marathon Talks Stretch Past Dawn in Islamabad Amid Security Lockdown

Reports by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post described the talks as a marathon diplomatic effort between long-time adversaries, with discussions stretching late into the night and into early Sunday.

The New York Times said negotiations between US and Iranian officials extended "past 5 a.m. local time on Sunday," calling it a "historic encounter" as both sides sought to broker peace after weeks of conflict.

The report noted that the length of the talks - more than 15 hours - suggested both sides "remained engaged and still had topics to discuss," even as no breakthrough had emerged.

It identified control of the Strait of Hormuz as the central sticking point, describing it as an "economically vital waterway" at the heart of the dispute between Washington and Tehran.

The paper added that while the talks had yet to yield results, direct, face-to-face engagement at this level was "extraordinary" given decades of hostility between the two countries.

The Wall Street Journal focused on conditions in Islamabad, reporting that the Pakistani capital had turned into a "ghost town" as authorities imposed sweeping security measures.

According to the report, central Islamabad was placed under lockdown. Roads were closed, shops and offices shut, and thousands of police and security personnel deployed. Streets "normally buzzing with cars and motorbikes, were almost empty," it said.

The paper described tight security at the venue, where journalists passed "a dozen gun-toting police officers" and underwent multiple checks before entering the press centre.

Security concerns were linked to fears that "no spoiler can jeopardize the talks" amid a fragile ceasefire and recent violence in the region.

The Washington Post described the negotiations as the highest level of direct engagement between the United States and Iran in decades, led by Vice President JD Vance.

The report said talks "stretched well past midnight" and had moved into technical discussions, signalling limited progress but continued engagement.

It added that both sides were seeking "a more permanent end to the war" after agreeing to a temporary ceasefire, but remained "far apart on key issues."

Across outlets, coverage highlighted the lack of clarity on the outcome. The New York Times noted that the White House had "not provided any details about the status of the negotiations" despite their duration.

- IANS