Hello Reader
The winner is Pakistan, and the world needs to watch this!
The journey from being labelled as a “terrorist state” for years to becoming a major mediator in curtailing one of the deadliest wars marks a hard-earned victory.
How Pakistan made it possible is worth digging into ⬇️
So, the "quick and easy operation" lasted for three months and twenty days. Despite the arguments over who emerged as the clear winner, who kept asking for negotiations, and who repeatedly sought peace deals while keeping its ally, Israel, in the loop—and sometimes, or at least towards the end, seemingly out of the loop—the two principal adversaries finally agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
There are already debates that this MOU may be even more fragile than President Obama's JCPOA. Whether this 60-day period ultimately translates into a permanent peace arrangement for the region remains uncertain.
Questions continue to linger over the nuclear issue, the bombardment of Lebanon, the release of frozen assets, the reported demand for $270 billion in war reparations, the future of toll-free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of double blockades, and a long list of unresolved issues. In fact, signing the MOU was the easy part; implementing it may prove far more difficult.
But it is important to appreciate that after a long series of exhausting negotiations, both countries finally decided to end the war—at least for now.
And if you ask me who emerged as the clear winner and who stands to gain the most geopolitically from this entire episode, I would say neither Iran nor the United States. It is Pakistan.
Yes, the actual winners are those who act as a bridge between two opposing civilizations. Those who, instead of escalating a conflict, choose to negotiate peace.
Though our economy has become so resilient that it survives despite the budget rather than because of it. Or perhaps it is due to the fact that our focus has been on building a healthy reserve of diplomacy's most valuable currency i.e. Trust.
Not Europe. Not any Gulf power. Not even India, which appeared to maintain working relations with both countries. Instead, Pakistan emerged as the country on which two of the biggest rivals of the twenty-first century could rely on.
This naturally raises a few striking questions. Why was Pakistan chosen as a neutral and trustworthy country by both the United States and Iran? Why did Pakistan actively support bringing this war to an end?
If we talk about the United States, Pakistan has often been categorized as a "frenemy." The relationship has rarely remained stable. More often than not, when Washington needs Islamabad, Pakistan becomes indispensable; when it does not, the relationship cools rather quickly.
Yet during the recent Trump administration, something drastically changed.
The same Trump who was highly critical of Pakistan in 2018 appeared willing to bring Islamabad back into his inner circle. Whether this was because of Iran, broader regional calculations, or strategic necessity is open to debate. What is clear, however, is that Pakistan has consistently responded whenever Washington called upon it during major regional crises. Over time, this built a degree of trust. The United States came to believe that Pakistan could once again help manage a sensitive geopolitical situation.
To achieve this, several developments strengthened the relationship. Field Marshal Asim Munir was invited to a private luncheon by Trump—an exceptionally rare gesture for a serving military leader.
Pakistan also nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, joined his Board of Peace initiatives, and launched cooperation with his World Liberty Financial crypto platform. One may agree or disagree with these moves, but they reveal an important point.
Pakistan appeared to "read Trump right." And that is how Pakistan gradually built what may be called "personal trust" with Trump. The Islamabad talks are perhaps the clearest manifestation of that investment.
Now, coming to Iran.
Iran was the first country to recognize Pakistan after independence in 1947. Pakistan hosts the second-largest Shia population in the world, creating social, religious, and cultural linkages that naturally influence bilateral relations. Much of the goodwill stems from decades of engagement, shared regional concerns, and the broader sense of solidarity that often exists between Muslim-majority countries.
But why did Iran trust Pakistan?
Unlike some regional actors, Pakistan has generally sought to avoid becoming a participant in sectarian rivalries or geopolitical blocs directed against Iran. Additionally, it does not host any American military base.
More importantly, since the severance of diplomatic relations between Washington and Tehran following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Pakistani Embassy in Washington has represented Iranian interests in the United States for decades.
Another reality is Pakistan remains the only nuclear-armed state in the Muslim world. In a conflict involving sovereignty, deterrence, and regional power balances, Pakistan's political support carried symbolic significance for Tehran.
Yet Pakistan's mediation was not driven solely by brotherhood, history, or goodwill. It was also a matter of national interest.
Islamabad feared that a prolonged war could spill over into Balochistan and destabilize Pakistan's western border. If the United States and Israel became successful in achieving one of the primary objectives behind the war i.e. regime change, Pakistan could face severe security challenges. And any prolonged instability there could create a smooth passage for hostile intelligence networks to expand their activities in the region.
Pakistan also maintains a defense relationship with Saudi Arabia. Any direct escalation between Iran and Saudi Arabia could have placed Islamabad in an extremely uncomfortable position. Mediation offered a way to prevent such a scenario from materializing.
Thirdly, as Israel has always wanted to dismantle the Axis of Resistance with the support of the United States, so that it can smoothly pursue its objectives in Palestine while Hamas loses its backing. If we observe the regional landscape chronologically, Pakistan remains the only nuclear-armed Muslim-majority state capable of influencing the broader strategic balance. Hence, it was important for Pakistan to back and support Iran and play its role in bringing this war to an end.
So The Islamabad MOU may or may not evolve into a permanent settlement. Yet in a world where everybody is choosing sides, being trusted by both sides is perhaps the rarest strategic asset of all.
Conversation With a Diplomat
Exclusive Interview With Syed Zahid Raza
High Commissioner of Pakistan to Mauritius
In this exclusive episode of Conversation With a Diplomat, H.E. Syed Zahid Raza, High Commissioner of Pakistan to Mauritius, shares his remarkable personal journey, professional background, and the experiences that shaped his diplomatic career.
|
What we're watching next
Upcoming multilateral events you should look out for
Get featured in our newsletter
Send your insights, opinions, and articles below
|
