Qamar Bashir
As the Middle East trembles under the roar of fighter jets, the flash of missiles, and the collapse of cities into dust, a parallel story is unfolding—quieter, more complex, yet potentially far more consequential. While destruction dominates the headlines, Pakistan has stepped into a role that is both extraordinary and perilous: that of a mediator between the United States and Iran, two adversaries locked in confrontation but searching, however cautiously, for a path out of escalation.
This moment reflects not just diplomacy, but a test of credibility, trust, and survival. Iran has endured sustained pressure, repeated strikes, and targeted elimination of leadership, yet it continues to stand—resilient, adaptive, and determined. It has demonstrated that even under the combined weight of Israel and the United States, it retains the capacity to defend its sovereignty with courage, resourcefulness, and strategic depth. This transformation—from a perceived vulnerable state to a formidable resisting power—has altered the balance of the conflict.
It is in this altered reality that Pakistan has entered the stage.
The sequence of events is critical. Field Marshal Asim Munir engaged in direct and substantive discussions with President Donald J. Trump, reviewing the evolving battlefield dynamics, the risks of prolonged conflict, and the urgent need for de-escalation. Immediately thereafter, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, conveying the essence of these discussions and emphasizing the necessity of dialogue, ceasefire, and a dignified resolution. This carefully calibrated diplomatic relay—Washington to Islamabad, Islamabad to Tehran—has positioned Pakistan as a central conduit in a highly fragile process.
Yet, Pakistan’s role must be understood through a very precise lens.
When the confrontation is between Iran and Israel, Pakistan’s position is clear and principled. It extends diplomatic, political, and, where expedient, material support to Iran, recognizing its right to defend itself against aggression. In such a context, Pakistan does not adopt neutrality; it aligns itself with the principle of sovereignty and resistance.
However, when tensions arise between Iran and the Middle Eastern countries—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Oman—Pakistan assumes a different role altogether. It does not take sides. Instead, it becomes a balancer, working to reduce friction, discourage escalation, and bring all parties toward diplomatic resolution. This distinction is not merely tactical; it reflects deep strategic understanding. Pakistan recognizes that division within the Muslim world weakens the region collectively and invites external manipulation. Therefore, its objective in such cases is unity, not alignment.
This dual posture—supportive where principle demands, balanced where unity requires—is the essence of Pakistan’s diplomatic maturity.
But today’s mediation carries an added layer of danger—one that makes Pakistan’s role not only critical, but extremely sensitive and precarious.
Recent history has created a deep trust deficit. On more than one occasion, diplomatic engagement between the United States and Iran has coincided with or been followed by military escalation. During earlier negotiations, including those in the previous year, Iran was attacked even while diplomatic channels were active. Now, for the third time, a mediation process involving a third party—this time Pakistan—is underway. This pattern has made Iran extremely cautious.
From Tehran’s perspective, diplomacy has at times appeared less as a path to peace and more as a prelude to pressure or even attack. This perception fundamentally shapes Iran’s current approach. It fears that under the cover of dialogue, strategic positioning may continue—potentially culminating not just in aerial strikes, but in a more direct confrontation. With tens of thousands of U.S. personnel already positioned in the region and military assets significantly reinforced, concerns about escalation into ground engagement cannot be entirely dismissed.
This is what makes Pakistan’s role extraordinarily delicate. It is not merely facilitating communication; it is navigating a minefield of distrust, suspicion, and historical experience. Any misstep, any perceived imbalance, or any repetition of past patterns could collapse the entire process. Pakistan must therefore ensure that this round of diplomacy does not become another episode of “talk and strike,” but instead evolves into a genuine pathway toward resolution.
At the same time, the broader dynamics of the war continue to reinforce the urgency of mediation. Massive arms flows into the region, including tens of billions of dollars in recent U.S. approvals, have intensified militarization. While these are presented as defensive measures for regional allies, they form part of a larger strategic framework that supports U.S. interests and ensures Israel’s security. Middle Eastern countries finance these systems, yet their operational integration often aligns with broader strategic objectives beyond their immediate national defense.
This deepens the paradox of the conflict. The region pays for its own militarization, while remaining locked in a cycle of dependency and insecurity.
Iran, on the other hand, continues to rely on indigenous capabilities—missiles, drones, and asymmetric strategies—to offset this imbalance. Its resilience has demonstrated that even under sustained attack, it retains the ability to respond and endure. Leadership losses have not dismantled its system; instead, new layers continue to emerge, ensuring continuity.
For the United States, this creates a strategic dilemma. A prolonged war is costly, complex, and increasingly unsustainable. Yet, disengagement without a structured settlement risks reputational damage. Pakistan’s mediation offers a path that allows both sides to recalibrate without humiliation—providing Iran with dignity and recognition, and the United States with a viable exit from escalation.
However, another critical dimension must be clearly understood.
If the war continues, Israel stands as the principal beneficiary. Prolonged conflict keeps the region divided, keeps Iran under pressure, and ensures continued U.S. engagement in support of Israeli security. A fragmented and militarized Middle East serves Israel’s long-term strategic interests.
But if the war is halted, if a ceasefire is established, and if negotiations—particularly on Iran’s nuclear program—reach a balanced and dignified conclusion, then the equation changes dramatically. In such a scenario, Israel risks becoming the biggest loser. Its strategy of sustained escalation would fail, its ability to keep the region in perpetual tension would diminish, and it could find itself increasingly isolated—not only globally, but potentially even in its strategic alignment with the United States.
This is why the success of mediation carries consequences far beyond the immediate ceasefire. It determines who shapes the future of the region: those who thrive on conflict, or those who seek stability.
In this context, one additional and essential element must be considered. For lasting peace, there must be accountability. A high-level international commission—under the United Nations or a similarly credible global framework—should be established to examine the origins of the conflict. It must determine whether there was a genuine and imminent threat from Iran that justified the scale of military action.
If such a threat is established, then responsibility must be acknowledged accordingly. But if no imminent threat existed, then justice demands a different outcome. Those responsible for initiating and sustaining the conflict must be held accountable, and Iran must be compensated for the destruction inflicted upon its infrastructure, economy, and people. Reconstruction, restitution, and accountability are not optional—they are essential for restoring trust and preventing future conflicts built on contested narratives.
This is where Pakistan’s mediation must evolve beyond ceasefire into structured resolution.
Pakistan’s own motivations reinforce its commitment. Instability in the Middle East directly affects its economy, energy security, and internal cohesion. Peace is therefore not just a diplomatic aspiration—it is a national necessity.
If Pakistan succeeds, it will not only help end a devastating conflict, but also reassert the power of diplomacy in an era dominated by force. It will revive its historical legacy as a bridge between great powers and demonstrate that even in the most volatile circumstances, dialogue can prevail over destruction.
If it fails, the consequences will be severe. The cycle of war will deepen, distrust will harden, and the forces that benefit from perpetual conflict will emerge stronger.
At this decisive moment, Pakistan stands at the intersection of war and peace, navigating one of the most dangerous diplomatic terrains of our time. It has chosen the path of balance, courage, and foresight.
And in doing so, it has reminded the world of a profound truth: that the greatest victories are not achieved by those who prolong wars, but by those who have the wisdom—and the courage—to end them.
Qamar Bashir
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attaché to Malaysia
Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan
