Pakistan at the center of the US-Iran war

Among the few states attempting to bridge the widening divide and sitting at the center stage of the current war between the United States (US) and Iran, Pakistan has emerged as an influential and increasingly relevant diplomatic actor. Leveraging a delicate balance of neutrality, strategic restraint, and sustained communication with both sides, Islamabad has positioned itself as a potential intermediary in one of the Middle East’s most volatile confrontations.

However, while Pakistan’s mediation efforts reflect both ambition and pragmatism, the prospects for a meaningful breakthrough remain constrained by deep-rooted mistrust and conflicting strategic objectives.

To this end, The Beiruter reached out to Haitham Naser, a scholar at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, to better understand the current dynamics that have unfolded.

The evolving diplomatic initiative

Reports of a proposed Pakistani ceasefire initiative, often described in media as a time-bound framework for de-escalation, highlight Islamabad’s attempt to formalize its mediation efforts. However, Naser asserted that official statements from Pakistan’s foreign ministry suggest that such proposals remain fluid and unconfirmed. Rather than a single, rigid plan, Pakistan appears to be advancing a set of evolving ideas aimed at gradually reducing tensions.

Central to this approach is a phased strategy. According to Naser, the initial step focuses on immediate de-escalation, including reducing military activity and preventing attacks on critical infrastructure. This would be followed by partial reopening of strategic maritime routes, particularly those vital to global energy flows. Subsequent phases would aim to establish direct communication channels between Washington and Tehran, eventually paving the way for structured negotiations.

Importantly, Pakistan is not acting alone. Its efforts are often aligned with broader diplomatic initiatives involving countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. These multilateral engagements reflect a shared recognition that no single mediator can resolve a conflict of this magnitude. Instead, coordination among regional and global actors is seen as essential to sustaining any de-escalation process.

Pakistan’s position on escalation and military involvement

Recent statements by Pakistan’s military leadership further illustrate this balancing act. While condemning Iranian attacks on Saudi territory, Naser said that Pakistani officials framed their stance as opposition to “unnecessary escalation,” rather than signaling any intention to intervene militarily or abandon mediation efforts altogether.

Naser clarified that such statements should not be interpreted as a shift toward direct involvement. Pakistan’s defense agreements with Saudi Arabia remain strictly defensive in nature, meaning any potential support would be limited to protecting Saudi sovereignty rather than engaging in offensive operations. Moreover, no formal request for assistance has been made by Riyadh.

Two additional factors reinforce Pakistan’s restraint. First, Saudi Arabia itself remains engaged in diplomatic coordination efforts, including multilateral discussions aimed at de-escalation. Second, Pakistan’s credibility as a mediator depends on maintaining neutrality, which would be compromised by any overt military alignment.

Consequently, Islamabad continues to adopt a consistent approach: condemning actions that risk escalation, whether by Iran or other actors, while avoiding direct participation in the conflict. This calibrated stance allows Pakistan to preserve its role as an intermediary without becoming entangled in the hostilities it seeks to mitigate.

Strategic gains and calculated interests

While Pakistan’s mediation role carries diplomatic prestige, it is also driven by tangible national interests. One immediate benefit that Naser outlined has been the safeguarding of its maritime and economic assets. For instance, improved relations with Iran during the mediation process facilitated the safe passage of Pakistani vessels through critical waterways, ensuring the continuity of trade routes.

Additionally, Naser notes that by positioning itself as a mediator, Pakistan mitigates the political risks associated with its defense commitments to Saudi Arabia. Active participation in military operations could have strained its relationship with Iran and exacerbated regional tensions. Mediation, by contrast, allows Islamabad to maintain strategic balance while enhancing its international standing.

This dual objective, advancing national interests while contributing to regional stability, underscores Pakistan’s pragmatic approach. Rather than seeking an ambitious grand settlement, Islamabad appears focused on achievable outcomes that align with both its diplomatic capacity and strategic priorities.

Obstacles to a lasting agreement

Despite these efforts, the prospects for a comprehensive agreement remain limited. The fundamental challenge, according to Naser, lies in the entrenched positions of both the United States and Iran. Washington’s demands, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear program, are perceived by Tehran as non-negotiable infringements on its sovereignty. Conversely, Iran’s conditions, ranging from sanctions relief to compensation for wartime damages, are viewed by the US as unrealistic in the current context.

Additionally, Naser noted that this mutual rigidity reflects not only strategic calculations but also domestic political considerations. Both governments face internal pressures to project strength, often resulting in maximalist demands that complicate diplomatic compromise. As a result, mediators like Pakistan are confronted with the difficult task of reconciling positions that are, at least in the short term, fundamentally incompatible.

Moreover, a deep deficit of trust continues to hinder progress. Naser said that the history of failed negotiations between the 2 countries has created skepticism about the durability of any agreement. Even confidence-building measures, while necessary, are unlikely to yield immediate results without sustained commitment from both sides.

Toward realistic de-escalation

Recognizing these constraints, Naser believes Pakistan’s mediation strategy highlights realism over ambition. Rather than pursuing a comprehensive peace agreement, Islamabad is advocating for incremental steps that can gradually reduce tensions. This includes limiting military escalation, protecting critical infrastructure, and fostering indirect communication channels.

A key component of this approach is the recalibration of expectations, according to Naser. Pakistan, along with other mediators, is urging both parties to scale back their demands and focus on attainable objectives. By prioritizing short-term stability over long-term resolution, mediators hope to create a foundation upon which more substantive negotiations can eventually be built.

Crucially, this process requires patience, Naser noted. Diplomatic progress in such a complex conflict is inherently slow, and premature expectations of a breakthrough could undermine ongoing efforts. As such, Pakistan’s role is less about delivering immediate results and more about sustaining a fragile diplomatic momentum.

Foundations of Pakistan’s mediation role

Pakistan’s ability to assume a mediation role stems primarily from its conduct during the early stages of the conflict. Notably, Naser explained that Islamabad refrained from direct participation in military operations, despite its longstanding security partnerships with Gulf states. This restraint was particularly significant given Pakistan’s defense agreements with countries such as Saudi Arabia, which could have otherwise compelled a more active involvement. Instead, Pakistan adopted a cautious approach, condemning escalatory actions while avoiding alignment with any military bloc.

From Iran’s perspective, this neutrality translated into a degree of trust. By neither joining hostilities nor endorsing aggressive measures against Tehran, Pakistan signaled its willingness to remain an impartial actor. Simultaneously, Islamabad maintained open channels of communication with Iranian political and military leadership, reinforcing its credibility as a diplomatic interlocutor.

On the other side, Pakistan gradually gained the confidence of the US. As initial assumptions about a swift collapse of Iran proved inaccurate, Washington appeared increasingly receptive to alternative assessments of the conflict. Pakistan’s nuanced understanding of regional dynamics, combined with its active diplomatic engagement with US leadership, elevated its role from a peripheral observer to a consultative partner. Over time, this dual engagement enabled Pakistan to carve out a unique space as one of the few actors maintaining dialogue with both adversaries.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s efforts highlight a broader reality: in deeply polarized conflicts, the goal of mediation is not necessarily to resolve all disputes at once, but to prevent further escalation and create space for dialogue. Whether this approach will succeed depends not only on Pakistan’s diplomatic skill, but also on the willingness of the US and Iran to embrace compromise over confrontation.