Pakistan Reiterates Commitment to US-Iran Mediation
Pakistan is actively pursuing renewed diplomatic initiatives aimed at de-escalating the conflict between the United States and Iran. Recent developments include an invitation extended by Pakistan to senior Iranian officials for discussions in Islamabad. This outreach follows a conversation between Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and his Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, with Dar urging Araghchi to visit Pakistan at his earliest convenience. Concurrently, government sources indicate that National Assembly Speaker Ayaz Sadiq has also invited Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the Iranian Speaker and chief negotiator, to Pakistan. The timing of these Iranian officials' potential visits to Islamabad remains undetermined.
These diplomatic overtures emerge against a backdrop of heightened rhetoric, with US President Donald Trump publicly accusing Iranian leaders of duplicity regarding peace talks. Trump, via Truth Social, expressed frustration, stating, "They ask for a meeting, some would say ‘beg,’ talks begin, with more scheduled in the immediate future, and they say, openly and proudly, that they’re not having any discussions." He further conveyed to reporters that this represented Iran’s "last chance" to agree to a "good document," threatening "decapitation" and offering a stark choice between "a deal or total surrender."
These remarks from President Trump followed a statement by Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, who firmly denied any ongoing direct talks with the US. Baghaei clarified that the only active discussions were technical negotiations with Oman concerning the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial maritime passage through which a significant portion of global oil supplies typically transits. Addressing the press on Monday, Baghaei reaffirmed Pakistan’s central role as the primary mediator in US-Iran relations, acknowledging Qatar’s readiness to offer assistance if required.
The Elusive Path to an Exit Strategy
Since the onset of the conflict on February 28, Pakistan has consistently maintained a position advocating for restraint, dialogue, and a diplomatic resolution. In April, Islamabad hosted the first direct US-Iran talks in decades, which culminated in the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in June. This agreement involved Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and President Trump. However, previous attempts at de-escalation have proven fragile. An April ceasefire quickly collapsed, leading to a US naval blockade on Iran’s southern ports. Similarly, the MoU’s effectiveness was short-lived, with renewed exchanges of attacks and the reimposition of the US naval blockade occurring within a month.
Despite these setbacks, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tahir Andrabi has repeatedly emphasized throughout July that the MoU remains the foundational framework for peace, even as the ceasefires it was intended to uphold have repeatedly failed. Iranian President Pezeshkian recently echoed this sentiment, stating that the MoU would serve as "the centre of gravity" for Iran’s future foreign relations. He stressed the importance of compelling the adversary to adhere to signed agreements, asserting that this would enhance the security of Iran, the region, and its allies.
Asif Durrani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Iran, described the memorandum as a "foundational document" rather than an obsolete one. He highlighted Pakistan's sincere facilitation efforts, which he noted have received international recognition. Grace Wermenbol, a former US national security official and senior visiting fellow at the German Marshall Fund, attributed the persistent breakdowns to a deeper issue, observing that "persistent recurring conflict has eroded the trust necessary for a longer-term ceasefire."
Mehran Kamrava, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Qatar, suggested that the repeated failures are less indicative of Pakistan’s mediation capabilities and more reflective of the US approach. He argued that "The United States has no exit strategy, no clear objectives and no sense of what the end game is or ought to be, and it continues to move the goalposts." Kamrava added that Iran is determined to maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, a goal achievable only through cooperation with Oman and the implicit or explicit agreement of other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. He concluded that this fundamental issue, rather than any failure in mediation, is the core of the conflict’s intractability.
Conversely, Seyed Mojtaba Jalalzadeh, a Tehran-based international relations analyst, posited that the repeated failures have diminished Pakistan’s role from that of a conflict-resolving mediator to a facilitator with access to the involved parties. While this access remains valuable due to the absence of direct US-Iran communication channels, Jalalzadeh cautioned that Pakistan's goodwill is not inexhaustible. He warned that if Pakistan overpromises, its reputational capital could erode over time.
A Multifaceted Diplomatic Landscape
Pakistan is not the sole entity engaged in efforts to alleviate tensions. Iran and Oman have been conducting separate negotiations regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, focusing on technical aspects of maritime access. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly expressed concerns about any arrangement that could grant Iran control over the waterway, deeming it a "very dangerous precedent."
Durrani differentiated Pakistan’s role from Oman’s, stating, "Pakistan cannot be compared to Oman in that respect because Pakistan is not part of the strait." Jalalzadeh characterized this division of labor as a natural "diplomatic division of labour." He explained that the Strait of Hormuz involves technical issues such as shipping routes, minesweeping, and service costs, which are best managed by Iran and Oman as the littoral states. In contrast, Pakistan and Qatar can concentrate on the "political-strategic level of the conflict, including a ceasefire, the reduction of attacks, sanctions, the nuclear file and security guarantees."
Kamrava viewed the increasing number of mediators as a strength, not a weakness. He noted a "collective will across the region, among the GCC states, Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt, to ensure this conflict ends as soon as possible." He emphasized that there is a recognition that all parties must contribute, and this emerging division of labor is a constructive development.
Structural Challenges to Peace
Analysts suggest that Pakistan's primary challenge is structural rather than tactical. While it can facilitate talks, issue statements, and broker agreements, it lacks the power to compel Washington and Tehran to uphold their commitments. Commenting on President Trump’s fluctuating rhetoric, Jalalzadeh interpreted it as a deliberate strategy to create urgency and impose costs on Iran while preserving Trump's flexibility on timing. Jalalzadeh argued that Trump's threats are less indicative of an imminent deal and more a "statement of intent and a bargaining tactic."
Kamrava, however, disagreed, stating, "What we have seen from Donald Trump is erratic statements and postures, and the one thing conspicuously absent is consistency." He contended that the mixed messages are not a negotiating tactic but rather reflect a lack of strategy. Kamrava added that Trump "sees his own unpredictability as a source of power," but the White House’s inconsistent approach to the conflict only exacerbates this unpredictability.
Wermenbol attributed this inconsistency to domestic political pressures. She observed that Trump has simultaneously pursued both military escalation and diplomacy for months without achieving breakthroughs on either front. She noted that the war remains unpopular in the US, and its economic costs are creating difficulties for the administration, which she believes is attempting to manage the situation by obscuring the extent of the ongoing conflict and its failure to achieve stated objectives.
